HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVI$ION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV'GUHTA, C.J. ‘ HON’BLE $HRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (C) No.1337/2oo9 Appellants 1 Smt Ganga bai, w/o late Shri Budhan Dehari, aged about 40 years 2 Satanram S/o late Shri Budhan Dehari, aged about 25 years 3 Puran, s/o Shri Budhan Dehari, aged about 2O years Purushottam, 8/0 Shri Budhan Dehari, aged about 15 years 5 Kumari Pratibha, d/o Shri Budhan Dehari, aged about 16 years Appellant No.4 and 5 are minor through natural guardian of mother Smt Gangabai, appeliant No.1 All the appellants are by caste - Halba, resident of village — Lohattar, PS Durgukondal, District South Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) VER$US Respondents Shravan Kumar 'Netam, s/o Tulsiram Driver Netam, aged about 4O years, resident of village and post Sambalpur, Tahsil ~ Bhanupratappur, District — South Bastar Kanker (CG) Owner 2 Pawan Kumar, s/o Shankarlal Rathi, resident of village and post Sambalpur, Tahsii ~ Bhanupratappur, District -— South Bastar (CG) insurer 3- The New lndia insurance Company Limited, through : Branch Manager, Branch Officer Project, near Auto Mcbi‘e, GE Road, Power House Bhilai, District - Durg (CG) Miscelhneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri JA Lohani, counsel on behalf of Shri Prakash Tiwari, counse! for the appellants Shrl Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (27m July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is olaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30062009, passed in Claim Case No.48/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,51,200/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Budhan Dehari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,65,000/— 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 Budhan Dehari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A m «2mm i m mmmnw i i ”intimate/wt , may. the offending vehicle Matador bearing registration No.CG-04—Gl3386; as the above offending vehicie Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New indie Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 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.15,000l~ per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section i63-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1D,OOO/— 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.15,000l- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Budhan Dehari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 6) Shri JA Lohani, 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 R31 ,65,DOO/— oniy. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New india Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicie Matador on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of R51 ,65,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) in a motor accident claim case What is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts I Tribunais should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Budhan Dehari used to earn Rst4,000/~ per month from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased owned any agricultural land at all. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. ”W W; 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainiy on the iawer side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Budhan Dehari was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he couid have easily earned Rs70~75 per day even by working as an un-skiiled labour. 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. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.24,000/. towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Budhan Dehari was aged about 45 years; we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 wouid 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 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41 -45 years. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.‘i6,000/~ with the multipiier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,0DO/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,0DO/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,39,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Budhan Dehari in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsel far the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are emitted 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. 18) 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.74,000/— at RS.7,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,39,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.74,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New india insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.81,000/— (Rs.74,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.74,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunai‘ 21) No order as to costs. Sdl— Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice ‘ Judge