HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISlON BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J CORAM: Misc. Anneal No. 859 of 2005 Appeiiants 1 Smt Afsana Parween, aged 26 years, Ciaimants wife of Shri 3eikh Jamal Ahmed u . 2. Abdul Sattar, aged 65 years, son of late Shri Abdw Gani 3. Rafikunnisa, aged 55 years, wife of Shri ‘ Abdui Sattar 4. Seikh Azmal Gani, aged 4 years, sen of {ate Shri Seikh Jama! Ahmed 5. Asvira Parveen, aged 2 years, daughter of late Shri Seikh Jamal Ahmed Appellant No.4 and 5 are minor. through their natural guardian mother Smt Afsana Parveen. the appellant No.1. All resident of Chuchihiyapara, near railway crossing, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Respondents Mano; Patel, aged 24 years, son of Shri Manohar Patel, resident of vitlage Jhabarpali Road, Dipika Korba, Tehsil & District Karba (Chhattisgarh) (Driver) ‘2“ Bhagwat Pandit, son of late Shri Bala Pandit, resident of Dipka Korba, Tehsil ’& District Korpa (Chhattisgarh) (Owner) 3 The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd Division Office Geetanjaii Building Main Road, Korba. (CG) through the Branch Manager (insurer) i m+~ @ Misceilanagus Appeal under $ectian 173 of Mctor VehicleA¢t Present : Shri Somnath Verma, counsei forthe appeilants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. V ORDER (13m Decembey, 2010) t ‘ The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation aviarded by the 5‘“ Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, BilaSpur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 11.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.41 /2004. 2) As against the Compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- ciaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow. minor children and parents of deceased Sajju @ Sheikh Jamai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident in the intervening nightof 20‘“ and 215‘ of February, 2004, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till t‘ne date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sajju @ Sheikh Jamai died on account i; of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident in the intervening night of 20‘“ and 21$ of February, 2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ‘x offending vehicie Truck bearing registration No.CG-12/ZC-1 806; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Orientai insurance Company Limited and the ineurance company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation of the ciaimants. 4)‘ As the respondents have not ,fiied any appeal against the V ‘ award, the aboVe findings recorded by the Tribunai have now attained finality. a 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000f- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Meter Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,DDD/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased; the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10;OOO/- per annum. By multiplying the, annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000l- under other heads; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sajju @ Sheikh Jamal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri $omnath Verma, 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 iow compensation of Rs.2,00,000/— only. 7) ‘ Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and ‘contended that as the claimants could establish any definite and regular income of the deceased; the compensation of u‘ Rs.2,00,000/‘- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ln a motor accident claim case What is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid 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.2,00,DOO/- 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 Sajjii @ Sheikh Jamal used to earn Rs.2,700/- per month as driver, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per ahnum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. x 12)§ Considering that deceased Sajju @ Sheikh Jamal was aged abdut 30 years on the date of the accident, we are of the conisidered opinion that he couid have easily earned Rs.70—75- per day; even by working as an unskilled labour. We; therefore; l V pronose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2;000/- per month and Rs.24;000I- per annum. 13f By deducting the usual 1/3’d of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal u ‘ expenses s of the _ deceased, the claimants V , dependency . is assessed at Rs.1 6.,OOOI- per annum. 14) Considering .the age of the deceased, his widow, their children and parents of the deceased, we are of the opinion‘that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1 6,000I- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,DOO/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71 ,OOO/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sajju @ Sheikh Jamal in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel forthe parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibie 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. 17) Considering ail the relevant aspects of thermatter including the deiay in disposal of the ciaim petition and the present appeal, 4. and the fact that the Insurance Company alone'is not to be biamed for Qthe entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on jthe enhanced amount 'of compensation of Rs.71,000/— at Rsigtooon. i 18)} For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of‘the compensation is allowed ln part. The compensation of Rs.2,00,000l— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71 ,OOO/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.§,000i— on the enhanced amount of compensation of R371 ,000/—. 19) Respondent No.3 the Orientai Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ timed for depositing? the total sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.71,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.71-,000l—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. “a Sdl- g Chief Justicei padma