A.^.^. ^r71^0'S :f\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSSON BENCH CORA^I: HON'BLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR5 T.P.SHARMA, J. ADDellants/ Ciajmants t^ Resoondents Claimants Misc. ADpeai (0 No.1282 1 Smt Durpat @ Dulesh Sahu W/o Late Shri-Naresh Sahu, aged about 26 years 2 Ku Khushbu D/o Late Shri Naresh Sahu, aged about 06 years 3 Ku Rinkl Sahu D/o Late Shri Naresh Sahu, aged about 03 years 4 Khuman Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Naresh Sahu, aged about 5 years Appeilants No.2 to 4 are minor through naturai guardian mother Smt Durpat Sahu, W/o Late Shri Naresh Sahu 5 Smt Sumitra Sahu W/o Punit Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years A!l are residents of Village Gadbeda, Thana - Pithora, DIstt Mahasamund (CG) Versys 1 Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Non La! Sahu, aged about 26 years, r/o Village Gondri, Thana - Pathariya, Distt Bilaspur (CG) 2 Prafulla Chouhan S/o Ratilal Chouhan, aged about 38 years, R/o Kaliaras Besan, opposite Mji! Street No. 01 Fafadlh Raipur, Tahsil and Distt - Raipur (CG) 3 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allaynj General Jnsurance Company Ltd., Shivmohan Bhawan Vidhansabha, Road Pandari, Raipur Distt - Raipur ^ '^, ^. ^ ^ I^lscelianeous ADpea! under Section 173 ofthe MotorYelisde_1S88 Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vasim Miya, counsel for the appellants. Shri JA Lohani, counsei for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri SS Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (27th October, 2809) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.07.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 19/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,82,300/-clalmed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Naresh Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for his death In the motor acddent on 31.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensatlonaJong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vasim Mlya, learned counsel for the appeilants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the daimants' evidence about the income of the ^ ^ ,^ ^\ \-'- deceased: in selecting lower muitiplier of 12: and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- only. 4) Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The Bajaj ASIaynj General tnsurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri JA Lohani, iearned counsei for respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 6) As the respondents have not filed any appeal agalnst the award, the flndings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Naresh Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him In the motor accident on 31.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent driving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle Indica Car; as the offending vehicle on the date of the accident was insured with Bajaj Altaynj General Insurance Company Limlted, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants, now have attained finality. That apart, these flndlngs are not under challenge before us In this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 7) 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. ^ —\ 4 ^ ^ 8) Now. we shai! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Naresh Sahu used to earn Rs.200/- per day by running a general store, but the evidence led in that behaif was not of clinching nature. We, 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 at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on Its own estimate. 10) The claimants' dependency a!so has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deductingthe usuai 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal, considering that the deceased wasaged about 28 years on the date ofthe accident and his widow was shown to be 26 years of the age in the ciaim petition, is certainly on the Jower side. Considering all the relevant factors, we are of the opinion that multlplier of 16 would be appropriate in the case. 12) By muitipiylng the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitied to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Naresh Sahu in the motor accident. 5 z-t 1 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that wlth a view to avoid any possible dispute between the partles about the period for which the claimants are entitled to recelve interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 14) Consjdering all the relevant factors Including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Snsurance Company aione 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.1,07,000/- at Rs.8,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the clalmants for enhancement of the compensation js allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the TribunaJ is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 Bajaj Aliaynj General Snsurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositlng the totaS sum of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rs.1,07,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-) before the concerning Clalms Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^- :