^.^.R, ^-^-^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.984 of 2008 Appellants Claimants Respondents L' '< 1 Smt Sewika Rana, Wd/o Late Thandaram Rana, age 33 years 2 Anurag Rana, age 1 1 years, s/o Late Thandaram Rana 3 Kisan Rana, age 7 years, s/o Late Thandaram Rana Appellant Nos.2 and 3 through natural guardian Smt Sewika Rana All R/o Village - Danganiya, Post Nawagarh, Tah & Thana Saraipali, Distt Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Vijay Kumar Tiwari, S/o Devprasad Thwari, age 27 years, R/o Village - Jamalpur, Thana Aaspur Devsara, Distt Pratapgarh (UP) at present R/o 205 DH Road Kolkata 34, 24 Paragana (S) (Non-applicant No.1) Naresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o GR Agrawal, R/o 161 MG Road.Room No 207, Kolkata 7, West Bengat (Non- applicant No.2) United India Insurance Company Limited, Third Manzil 16, Hair Street Kolkata, through Mandal Office Kachahari Chowk, Krishna Complex, Raipur (CG) (Non-applicant No.3) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ^~.. ..^^""-^ ®S!-ciiS*»t, if!^S3SS'w'- '•-.t^s.E?'" .'• T .^&^ Present : Ms SharmilaSinghal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ISt ^. (21st July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. The unfortunate widowand minor sons of deceased Thandaram Rana are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.03.2008, passed in Claim Case No.4/2008. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor sons of deceased Thandaram Rana by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 19.10.2007 on accountof the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 08.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- 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 Thandaram Rana died on 19.10.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the tnotor accident on $.10.2807; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent ^- "t^ :i^^::..;::; -. '*s, ?.:•\ driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.WB-23 A/4031; as the above offending vehicte truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company \yas liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findingsrecorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,0007- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 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 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.27,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Thandaram Rana in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual paymenfc 6) Ms Sharmila Singhai, feamed counsel for the appetlants submitted that the Jribunal has erred in not accepting the ^· s/ ' H '^^^^^L^' ••*'J^ »'y £7?^^^^- 4 ;v -«<:. s: claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 1 6; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances pf the 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 tfte case. Itshould neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shalt examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,87,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Thandaram Rana used to eam Rs.300-400/- per day from his poultry farm, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any poultry farm at all. Similarly, no revenue papers or other documents were produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agricultural land in his possession. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault 'x -;—- »\- •—a-S;,. -»» ;-».•\ 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 reconslderation. 12) Consjdering that deceased Thandaram Rana was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that, he could have easily eamed 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 usuat 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,0007- per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Thandaram Rana was shown to be 40 years of age in his postmortem report, we are of the opinion that multiplierof 15 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 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 15) BymultiplyingtheannualdependencyofRs.16,000/-withthe multlplier. of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs;5,000/-.towards loss ofconsortium to the widow; and -T'y v Rs.5,000/-for lossofestate. Theclaimants, thus, become entitted to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/-as compensation for the death ofdeceased Thandaram Rana in the motor accident. 16) 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 enhaneed amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itsetf. 17) Considering alt 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 detay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 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.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amountof eompensation of .Rs.68,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.68,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensatipn + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest -v \- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge subbu ?t. '•••.•^'