mGHCOURTOFCHHATHSGARHATBmASPUR DMSION BENCH CORAMI’ HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPA, J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 2004 1. Smt. Leelavati Gupta, wife of late a Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, aged about 42 years. Kumari Namarata Gupta, daughter o Iate Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, age about 18 years. ' Kumari Sarada Gupta,vdaughter of late Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, aged about 16 years. r Appellants Suryakant Gupta, son of late Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, aged about 1 years. (SI. No. 3 _& 4 through naturali guardian mother — Smt. Leelavath Gupta) AII by caste — Rauniyar, resident of village : Mayapur, P.S. & Tahsil : Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. ERsus V The Chief Municipality Officr, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapu, distt. Surguja C.G. (Vehicle Owner) Md. A. Ansari, son of Md. Kasim Ansari, aged about 22 ‘years, by caste : Musliman, occupation : Water Tanker Driver, resident of village : Mauwadi, P.S. Shankargarh, Tahsil: Samari, present address; Chandini Chowk, Mayapur, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (Vehicle Driver) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Respondents T C f , d 4 i e r : Present : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for the appellants. Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Aditya Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.1. Ms. Neha Verma, counsel for respondent No.2. I ORDER (07“ March, 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 Third Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated» 15.11.2003, passed in Claim Case No.19 of 2002. ' 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,30,000/- claimed by the appella’nts/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Uma Shankar Gupta, by filing a claim petition .under Section 166 of the Motor Q'ehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Q R‘s.1.20,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, in the event of failure of Nagar Palik, Ambikapur in depositing the amount of_ compensation within 60 days of the passing of the award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led beforejt held that deceased Uma Shankar Gupta died, on account ’ ofsthe injuries sustained by'him in the motor accident on 13.03.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and neglient g 9/0?— driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker (Tractor) bearing registration No.CG-15A/0792; as the above offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was owned by Nagar Paiik, Ambikapur, the same was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. a 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3’d of Rs.12,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8,000/— a per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.8,000/- with the multiplier of 15», the compensation was worked out to Rs.1‘20,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum ’of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Uma Shankar Gupta in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, in the event of‘failure of Nagar Palik, Ambikapur in depositing the amount of compensation within 60 days of the passing of the award. 6) Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel for th‘e appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in Q‘t assessing his income at Rs.1‘000/- per month and Rs.12,000/— per annum oniy; in not awarding any sum towards funerai expenses; loss of estate; loss of consortium to the widow; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,20,000/— only. 7) Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Nagar Palik, Ambikapur, on the other hand, supported ,the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1;20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.’ 8) Ms: Neha Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the driver of the Tanker (Tractor) also supported the award. 9) ln 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 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Uma Shankar Gupta used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month from his pan-shop and kerosene distribution business, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The claimants“ witnesses admitted that the 9 deceased had no license for distribution of kerosene. In fact, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to a establish that the deceased was running a pan—shop at all. ln tnis state of evidence, we do not find any fault in ihe approach of the Tribunai in discarding the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 12) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.1‘000/- and Rs.12,000/— per annum is certainly on the iowe'r side and requires reconsideration, Considering that ' deceased Uma Shankar Gupta, on the date of the accident, was aged about 45 years, we are of the opinion that h‘e could haVe - easily earned Rs.50-55/— per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re—compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/— per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum. V 13) By deducting the usual 1/3'd of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is r assessed at Rs.12,000/— per annum. ‘ 14) Considering that deceased Uma Shankar Gupta, was aged, about 45 years on the date of the accident as shown in his postmortem report, we are of the opinion’that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case, in view of the dictum of the I ,7 u 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 14 has been prescribed for the age , group between 41-45 years. (“Ex V? 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.‘12,000/— with the muitiplier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.1,68,000/-. The f ciaimants are further entitied to receive to Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000l— towards loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,83,000/— asr compensation for the death of deceased Uma Shankar Gupta in motor accident. l 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the'appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is all0wed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal‘is enhanced to Rs.1,83,000l—. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date f filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 17) Respondent No.1 Nagar Palik, Ambikapur is granted three onths’ time for depositing the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest due thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. x (\(z ”i i ”x Std/'— 3 g Sunil. Kumar Stnha i“ Judge .J s , Chief Sd/— Justice _ _ " 113 the o m \ f