ts--?^a>. ^^^^-"y^ ^ jD HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Gl No. 1060 of2009 Appellants 1. Gomti Bai, aged about 25 years, wife of late Rajkumar. 2. Sanjoo, aged about 8 years, through natural guardian mother Gomti Bai. 3. Jal Bai, aged about 50 years, wife of late Leelaram. All belongs to caste Kewat, residence of village Bavtara, police station Pamgarh, district Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1 Avit Kumar Swan @ Amit Kumar, son of Trinath Swan, H.L.D. No. 443/D, Mausahi Jobra College Square, Malgodam, Cuttack, Orissa. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ravi Bhawan, near Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 Pramod Kumar Parida, son of R.K. Parida (Patel) Cuttack, Orissa, Bajrang Bali Road, thana Muglabad. Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER >nd (02'"'August,2011) AC.No. 1060 of 2009 ^' The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow, minor son and mother of deceased Rajkumar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 16/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and mother of deceased Rajkumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166of theMotor Vehicles Act, for his death on 25.04.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,0007- 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 Rajkumar died on 25.04.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motpr accident on 19.04,2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negljgent driving of the driver of the oTfending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.O.R.05/Q/2880; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on the date of theaccident was insured with the Reliance peneral Insurapce Company Limited and the Insurance / M.A.C. No. 1060 of 2009 Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the Insurer of the above offending vehicle has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- 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.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajkumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- @ 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 not accepting the claimants' evidence about the 'income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in awarding low sum of Rs.7,000/- only under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,77.000/- only. MAC.No. 1060 of 2009 V, -<. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- 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/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.1,77.000/- 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 Rajkumar used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as Mason and from his agricultural land, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In 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. . • 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. MAC.No. 1060 of 2009 AM 12) Considering that deceased Rajkumar was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour, in the year 2007, 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. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16.000/- per annum. 14) As deceased Rajkumar was aged about 32 years on the date ofthe accident, the multiplier of 16, in our opinion, 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 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- 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.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajkumar in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunat aboutthe period for which the claimants areentitled to MAC.No. 1060 of 2009 ^ 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 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.94,000/-at Rs.11,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71.000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/-. 19) Respondent No.2 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.94,000/- towards enhanced 'amount of compensation + Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu