HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH 2 Smt. Kunj Bai, Wfo Shri Shyamlal Dewangan, Aged about 45 years; 3 Ku. Purnima, Dlo Shri 'Shyamlal Dewangan, Aged about 15 years. 4 Devanand, ' S/o Shri Shyamlal Dewangan Aged about 13 years No 3 and 4 minor guardlan through shyamlal Dewangan All R/o Village Kesla, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Chhabilal Dewangan, S/o Shri Nohar Dewangan, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Kesla, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) Devnath Dewangan, S/o Shri Ganesh Dewangan, R/o Near Petrol Pump, Old Changora Bhata, P.S. Puranibasti, Raipur (C.G.) 3 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Office — Divisional Manager, Madeena Building, Jail Road, Raipur (co) Respondents Non-applicants (Driver) (Owner) (insurance Company) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present : Smt Fouzia Mirza and Shri R K Pali counsel for the appellants None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Misc Appeal No. 582 of 2006 Appellants 1 Shyamlal Dewangan, S/o Shri Applicants Khorbahara Ram Dewangan, Aged about 51 years. ORDER (07* January, 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 Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Raipur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.02.2006, passed in Claim Case No.2112006. 2) As against the compensation of_ Rs.13,55,000/~, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, sister and brother of deceased Shatruhan Lal, by filing a claim petition under Section 163~A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded atotal sUm of Rs.1 29,5001- as compensation along. with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling 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 Shatruhan Lal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.02.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the. offending motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04/CH-4658; as the above offending Motorcycle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New lndia 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. 6% 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, fhe above nndings recorded by the Tribunal have now .ettained finality. 5) ‘ The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000l— per‘annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.36,000[- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation Was worked out to Rs.1 ,20,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,29,500l- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased‘ Shatruhan Lal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,29,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Smt. Fouzia Mirza and Shri R.K Pali, leamed counsel forthe 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/~ per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,29,500/- only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-No.3, the New lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establishcth‘e income of the deceased as pleaded. by them, the ‘;\ //:” sr s compensation of Rs.1 ,29,500/- 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 Tribunals 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1.29,500/- 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 Shatruhan Lal used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by selling readymade clothes, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, A therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000{- per month and Rs.36,000/— per annum. 11) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side. Even assuming that claimant Smt. Kunj Bai, mother of the deceased was agednabout 60 years on the date of the accident, the- appropriate multiplier in the case would be 9 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 9 has been prescribed for the age group between 56-60 years. ma . 12) As the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimants are parents, sister and brother, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer' Ahamed and pthers Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225‘ The claimants‘ dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.1 8,000/- per annum. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18;OOOI- with the multiplier of 9, the compensation works out to Rs.1,62,000/—. By adding the further sum of Rs.9,500/— awarded by the~Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a~total sum of Rs.1,71,500/- as compensation for the death of deceased Shatruhan Lal in the motor accident. 14) 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. 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 lnsurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delayin the matter, we quantify the amountof interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,000l- at I Rs.4,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appellants] claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,29,500l~ awarded by the Tribunal is \ enhanced to Rs.1 ,71 ,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/~ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company‘Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.46,000/. (Rs.42,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,000/- towards quantified amOunt of. interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. t a) ‘ stu- Sd/_ Rangnath Chandrakar P Chief Justice \’ J dge u subbu .