.\ ^4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 521 of 2009 Appellants Applicants 1. Savitri Bai, aged about 40 years, wife of Late Kanhaiya 2. Brihaspati Bai, aged about 20 years, daughter of late Kanhaiya 3. Nand Kumar, aged about 18 years, son of late Kanhaiya All belong to caste Kewat, residence of village Bundela, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1 Avit Kumar Swan, son of Trinath Swan, HLD No.443/D Mausahi Jobra College Square, Malgodam, Cuttack, Orissa. 2 Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ravi Bhawan, near Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur (CG) 3 "Pramod Kumar Parida, s/o of R.K. Parida (Patel) Cuttack, Orissa, Bajrang Bali Road, Thana Muglabad, Cuttack Orissa." Memp of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Respondents Non-applicants Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2 ORDER (15th September, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ..^- ^^s^s^^N. '^•••^ '^^- i1%. ^ 'w W"€^ ^'- ^ -^•^S^ff^ ^.^ Q^ MAC.No. 521 of 2009 This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 17/2008. 2) As against the cpmpensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Kanhaiya, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date 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 Kanhaiya died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.OR-05Q/2880; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on the date of the accident was insured with the Reliance General 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 findingsrecorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income W€S'^ ^- ^o MAC.No. 521 of 2009 prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 15,0007- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50.000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kanhaiya in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Om P. Sahu, 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.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,57.000/- only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. ........a^^-^^^ ^'',^^\ '• ^ ..^" -" 7, •...•^'>, ^l MAC.No. 521 of 2009 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kanhaiya used to earn Rs.1,08,000/- per annum by running a hauler-mill, flour-mill, kirana-shop and agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs. 1,08,0007- per annum. Neither income-tax return of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal nor any registration/ license was adduced in evidence toestablish that the deceased either had any agricultural land in the village or was proprietor of any hauler-mill or flour-mill. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Kanhaiya was aged about 45 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 MAC.No. 521 of 2009 ^•2- an unskilled labour in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) 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. 14) As deceased Kanhaiya, on the date of the accident, was aged about 45 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,0007- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,39,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Kanhaiya in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. -^, 6 MAC.No. 521 of 2009 ^7 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/- at Rs.8,000/-. 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. 1,57,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,39,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/-. 19) Respondent No.2 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.82,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Sd/- judge Chief Justice subbu