HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 474 of 2008 Appellants Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Kanhaiyalal Sonkar son of Brijlal Sonkar, aged about 50 years. Tikeshwar Sonkar, son of Kanhaiyalal Sonkar, aged about 30 years. Manoj Kumar Sonkar, son of Kanhaiyalal Sonkar, aged about 26 years. Nemlal Sonkar, son of Kanhaiyalal Sonkar, aged about 19 years. All resident of village Nevarikala, Police Station and Tahsil Balod, district Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Uma Shankar Dahariya, son of Jeevanlal Dahariya, resident of Zone-3, Road S.P.A., Q. No. 6/E, S.T. Khusipar, Bhilai Police Station - Chawni, Tahsil and district Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Unit No.304-306 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, Ravishankar Punipar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Memo of appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.2. i [ ......^. "^ "^ a %"stSi^ S g j \^y 'l%^^^" ^. ORDER (12th July, 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.38/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 15,34,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and major sons of deceased Ramkhali Bai Sonkar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 23.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- 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 Ramkhali Bai Sonkar died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 23.10.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.CG-07/9861; as the above offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not ,^^ ^ss^ 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.2,000/- per month and the claimants' dependency at Rs.1,350/- per month and Rs.16,200/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,200/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,62,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,69,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramkhali Bai Sonkar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- @ 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 selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- only. 7) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,69,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. -''':'1' ^ •':' '.. /yi I 1 ^// "^ ^n^ 8) 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence led by the claimants about the incomeofthe deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 12) Considering that deceased Ramkhali Bai Sonkar was aged about 48 years and her husband, claimant No.1 Kanhaiyalal Sonkar was shown to be 50 years in the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 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 13 has been prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years. '^ ^:- ^ ^SSi^^'^ 'jj ^. ^^'./' '^ 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,08,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funera! expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ramkhali Bai Sonkar in the motor accident. 14) 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. 15) 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.54,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.54,000/-. 17) Respondent No.2 ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.54,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.54,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu