N RESPONDENTS Smt. Jhum’ Bai and othera Versus Ramsewak Sahu and others 93% For Pronouncement of Ordet j .0?201 1 Sd/‘ R.L.Jha"war Judge APPELLANTS CLAIANTS mhwN— La! : 1. - un-.--m.-..uamu...mm.m..nunlmm-”an"....uu~ununun.-numm-gumu.mu Misc. Appeal (C) No. 18$ of zqoa Smt. Jhuni Bai Wd/o late Manohar Lal : 1. Thakur, aged about 37 years. Khoman Sing Thakur. Slo Manohar Lal Thakur, aged about 17 years. Ku. Gujeshwari, D/c Manohar Thakur, aged about 15 years. Main $ingh S/o iate Manohar la! Thakur. aged about 12 years. Sumitra Bai, W/o Khem Ia! Thakur, aged about 60 yeavs, Appeuant No.2 to 4 minors through 199a! guardian mother Jhuni Bai. All Rio Village and Post Bhansuli, Thana Ranitarai, Tahsll Patan, District Durg (C.G.), Present R/o Kushalpur. Ralpur Thana Azad Chowk, Raipur. Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Ramsewak Sahu, SIG Glrdharlal Sahu, R/o Village and Post Gampar Thana Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.), Present R/o Basan Bai Wlo Ramsewak Sahu Baijnathpara. Durg. District Durg (CG) Basan Bai W/o Sewak Ram Sahu, Rio Baijnathpara Durg. District Durg (C.G.) The New India insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Office No.2, The New India insurance Company Limited, Behind the Oflice of the Life Insurance Company, Pandari, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1994 Appearance: Shri S.C.Verma. counsel for the appellants. Shri Somkant Verma. counsel for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri P. Dutla, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on oi .Oy201 1) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. M RESPONDENTS NONAPPLICANTS This is claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of compensation at Rs.2,50,400l- awarded in a death case by the Ptincipai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai. Raipur (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in ciaim case No. 2/2007 vide order dated 20.06.2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2006 at 8.30 p.m. Manohar Lal and one Kaitash Gond were returning to Bhansuli from Ranitarai Bazar on Rajdoot motor cycle bearing No.C.G. 04 ZU 4195, at the same time, at Bhalapara Koha Pond, truck bearing No. C.G. O4 ZC 0624 (for short ‘the offending vehicle') being driven by its driver/respondent No.1, was coming in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Rajdoot motor cycle, as a result of which, Manohar Lal died whereas Kailash Gond got injured. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.7,37,000l- claimed by the unfortunate appellants i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Manohar Lal in the motor accident on 02.06.2006. the Tribunai. on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed and respective submissions of the parties, heid that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, Manohar Lal died and as the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company/respondent No.3, the insurance company i.e. The New lndia Insurance Company Limited was also liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further held that it cannot be presumed that only on the basis of saiary certificate sowing that the deceased was eaming Rs.4500l- per month by working as Supervisor under Design Engineers (Building). However. the Tribunal, relying on the salary certificate issued by Nawal Kishore Pandey of the said company, further held that the deceased was working under the said company and accordingly assessed the monthiy income of the deceased as Rs.1800l- and Rs.2t600!— per annum. After deducting one-third towards his personal expenses. the Tribunal worked out the annual dependency at Rs.14,400/‘. Thereafter, taking into account age of the deceased as 40 years on the date of accident, applied multiplier of 16 and worked out total dependency at Rs.2,30,400/-. By adding sum of Rs.20,000/- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal worked out total compensation of Rs.2.50,400/- for the death of Manohar Lal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest at 6% per annum on the total compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. (aw/ww- zw « w t‘ _ 3% Learned counsel for the appeuant i claimant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,50,400l- only. it was argued by him that the ieamed Claims Tribuna should have assessed the income of the deceased by taking notional income. Lastly, he urged that based on the notional inoome of Rs.36,000I-, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 and for respondent No.3 argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation, and therefore, need not be interferred with. 5. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the impugned award including record. 6. ln 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. i shall now examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,50,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. lt is clear from the evidence of A.W.1 Smt. Jhuni Bai that at the time of accident, the deceased Manohar Lal was aged 38 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month under Nawal Kishor Pandey. She has further deposed that she has produced salary certificate issued by Nawal Kishore Pandey, but he was not examined, as is evident from paragraph 23 of the impugned order. However, the evidence of A.W.1 Smt. Jhuni Bai cannot be discarded. ‘The learned Claims Tribunal, inter alia holding, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.21,600/— per annum. l am of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 21 ,600/-. 8. The notional income of Rs.15000/~ per annum was prescribed ln the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein the deceased Manohar Lal lost his life, took place in the year 2006. lf the increase in the prices of the a»s essentia! commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2006, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.1 5,000/- prescribed in the $econd Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.24,000l~ in the year 2006. l therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/—. 9. As regards deduction, the Tribunal has rightly deducted one-third towards his personal expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, it would be appropriate to use multiplier of 16, which the Tribunal has rightly taken. Now, after deducting one-third from annual income of Rs.24,000/-, the dependency would come to Rs.18,000/- and after multiplying the same by the multiplier of 16, the total dependency works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By adding Rs.20,000l- under other permissible heads. as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation works out to Rs.3,08,000/—. As the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3linsurance company, therefore, the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation. 10. The claimants have already been awarded Rs.2,50,400/- by the Tribunal. if the amount of Rs.2,50,400l- is deducted from Rs.3,08,0001—, a sum of Rs.57,600/- would come. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.57,600l-. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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. 12. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Manohar Lal lost his life, took place in the year 2006; the claim petition was tiled by the claimants in the year 2006; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007; the present appeal was filed by the appellantslclaimants for enhancement of compensation in the year 2007 and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2011. Considering all the relevant factors 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 delay in the matter, I quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.57,600/— at Rs.2,400/—. Thus, total compensation works out to Rs.60,000I-. 13. For the foregoing reasons the appeai filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensatnon is allowed m part The compensation of R52 504ml. awarded by the Tribunai Is enhanced to Rs308000l~ with futther quantmed amount of Interest of Rs.2,400/- on the enhanced compensation of Rs.57,6001-. 14. Respondent N03 The New India insurance Company Limited Is granted three moths time for deposmng the tote! sum of Rs 60 000/- (Rupees Sixty one thousand six hundred oniy) With the concemmg Ciairns Tribunai No order as to costs Sd/e R.L.Jhanwar Judge