HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIOMBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal No. 1389 of 2005 1 Shyam Lal Sagarvanshi, s/o late Dhrerah Ram Sagarvanshi, aged about 45 years. 2 Smt. Bimla Bai, w/o Shyamlal Sagarvanshi, aged about 40 years. 3 Minor Yuvraj Singh, s/o Shankarlal Sagarvanshi, aged about 1 year. Minoi- appellant No.3 represented by their natural guardian and grandfather Shyam Lal Sagarvanshi, appellant No.1. All r/o village Khamhariya Bhata, P.0. Jevrasirsa, Thana Pulgaon, Chowki Jevrasirsa, Tehsil and district Durg C.G. VERSUS 1 Sarju @ Santosh Sahu, s/o Shiv Prasad Sahu, aged about 26 years, r/o village Kutelabhata, P.0. Jevrasirsa, Thana Jevrasirsa, Tehsil and district Durg C.G. 2 Mohammed Yunus, s/o Mohammed Yusuf, caste Muslim, aged about 36 years, R/o Bhilai Power House, Murgi Market Camp-2, Bhilai Thana Chawani, Tehsil & District Durg C.G. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg C.G. AppealU/S 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act 1988. Respondents Present: Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the appellants. "~"€\ '^^s^ Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (06th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2005, passed in Claim Case No.343/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 14,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and minor son of deceased Shankerlal Sagarvanshi, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 05.05.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,87,405/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dat^of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Shankerlal Sagarvanshi died on 05.05.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.04.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.CG-07C/1086; as the above offending ,\ ^'.a^ 3 vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,16,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.36,905/- towards medial expenses and further amount of Rs.34,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,87,405/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shankei-ral Sagarvanshi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,87,405/- @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. ' 6) Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,500/- per month andRs. 18,0007- '^ •^ ^ c. lr'; per annum only; and awarding low compensation of Rs.2,87,405/-only. 7) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,87,405/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this sippeal. 8) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sarju @ Santosh Sahu and respondent No.2 Mohammad Yunus, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Jeep, also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,87,405/- awarcte'd by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shankerlal Sagarvanshi used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month by working as helper in the Jeep, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal about the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.7,500/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do (.... y not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidenceabout the income of the deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,5007- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Shankerlal Sagarvanshi was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to re-conripute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his parents and son, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case. " 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17 thecompensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. By adding further sum of Rs.36,905/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of .'••;,,.-':;,:'"s^ •-. -^' ..^.^.. 1 tti^®8^1 t i '%.. %.^/r '%.„:.. w..^' v' Rs.3,18,905/- as compensation for the death of deceased Shankerlal Sagarvanshi in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are further awarded Rs.3,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.31,500/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,87,405/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,18,905/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.31,500/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.31,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.31,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. __—„— Sd/- ' Chief Jusdce Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge / Q subbu