..^^. '^ W5»Ki!-A y 1?^^^^" y r;- ^2 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Mise. Appeal (Cl No. 33 of 2008 -M Appellants Applicants before the Tribunal X 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Respondents 1 Non-applic^nts beforethe Tribunal Ramhin Bai Kewat wd/o late Tiharu Kewat, agedabout21 years. Ku. Khusbu Kewat, d/o late Tiharu Kewat,agedabout 5 months, Minor guardian through mother Smt. Ramhin Bai Kewat wd/o late Tiharu Ram Kewat aged 21 years. Shyam Bai Kewat, wd/0 late Mangal Kewat,agedabout45years. Rajesh Kewat s/o late Mangal Kewat, agedabout 17 years. Ku. Rani Kewat d/o late Mangal Kewat, aged about 15 years. Ku. Rajmati Kewat d/o late Mangal Kewat, aged about 12 years, Appellant no. 4 to 6 minor guardian through mother Smt. Shyam Bai Kewat wd/o late Mangal Kewat aged 45 years. All appellant of R/o village : Medpar, Chhotta, Poliee Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, district Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS Bansilal yadav, s/o Shri Budhram yadav, aged about 38 years, r/o village Lotlota, Police Station Katghora, distt. Korba C.G. At present - r/o M/s Ashish Enterprises c/o Ashish Kumar Agrawal, 106, Transport Nagar Korba, Tahsil and district Korba C.G. Driver of the offendina vehrcle 2. M/s. Ashish Enterprisesc/o Ashish Kumar Agrawal, 106, Transport Nagar Korba, Tahsil and district KorbaC.G. Owner of the offendina vehicle 3. United Indja Insurance Company Limited, Branch OffiGe : R.B. Traders 1 Floor Stadium Road Transport Nagar Korha, Tahsil and district Korba C.G. through the Braneh Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Braneh Office; Rajendra Nagar Chowk, near Haribhumi Press, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil and distt. Bilaspur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SEGTION173 OF THEMOTOR VEMICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri SameerSingh, counsel forthe appellants. Shri M.K. Baeg, counsel forrespondents No.land 2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel withShri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel forrespondentNo.3. ORDER (09th May, 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.11.2007, passed ineiaimCaseNo. 164/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.36,06,000/- claimed by the, appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter, !3!B1^8^8^as^te^^%W ^ i'VC.sy ^^ ^' ^ ^ mother, brother and sisters of deceased Tiharu Kewat, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the .claim petitioh till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal oh a close scrutiny of the entireevidence led before it held that deceased Tiharu Kewat died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.06.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-l 8-1-1-0330; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date ofthe aecident 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 was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) Asthe respondentshave not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- perannum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule-under Section 163-A of the -Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependeney was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By -SW-" ..-;"' 4 (S) multiplying the annual dependeney 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.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totaTsum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased TiharuKewat in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- @7% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 6) Shri Sameer Singh, 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 low compensation ofRs.1,87,000/-only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal,learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned 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 eompensation inthe facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri M.K. Baeg, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -Bansilat Yadavand respondent No.2 M/s Ashish Enterprises, the .•* • . . '. • . • .' . ' • • driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck, also supported theaward. u;i"'^*i-^<<t •.-t":'^ ^ XAsr%i, f' '^^^^^:. '- ^ SsC^ \~. '•^'. & '<?6-' 9) In a motor accidentclaim 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, nora Bonanza. 10) Nowwe shall examine as to whetherthe compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the factsand circumstancesof the presentGase. 11) True, theclaimants pleaded that deeeased Tiharu Kewat used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month as Mason and Electrician, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupationsof the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.8,OQO/-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. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- perannum in the year 2007 on the basis ofthe notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Sectibn 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering theage ofthe deceased, we are oftheopinion tbat he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year2007. We, therefore, ' .'>€" 1 -II ^. € .1 ? \. !\;.. propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that ofthe six claimants, it was claimant No.1 Ranahin Bai Kewat, widow of the deceased and claimant No.2 Ku. Khusbu Kewat, his minor daughter were mainly dependant on the deceased.'we are ofthe opinion thatthe Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3 of the incorhe of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency, is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, we are ofthe opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) 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 ofdeceased Tiharu Kewat in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the 's^WS^sS^s^:^. J"ii!^, "*^ S-..,,sS31&. S ::sesj!#-ty& S '•^^•^" "^ ^ •«... sfltbu £; Y ^~ !s'.. ^^ amountof interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 18) 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 thematter, we quantify the amount of interest on theenhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/- at Rs.8,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. Thecompensation of Rs.1,87,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/-with further quantified amountof interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Unjted India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.92,000/- (Rs.84,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of jnterest on'the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.84,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. ^dT-^ ChiefJustice Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge