•e^'" ,y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 63 of 2009 Respondents Non-applicants Appellants 1. Gauran Rathiya s/o Shri Dharam Claimants . Singh Rathiya, aged about 50 years, occupation labour and agriculture. 2. Smt. Shaniro wife of Gauran Rathiya, aged about 48 years. 3. Mogra wife of late Shri Dhaneshram Rathiya, aged about 20 years. All by caste Kanwar and resident of village Laripani, Tahsil Gharghoda, distt. Raigarh C.G. VERSUS 1. Vijay Kumar Agrawal s/o Shankar Lal Agrawal, occupation owner of the vehicle, r/o c/o Shital Sadi, Nai Sadak, near Shubhash Chowk, Raigarh C.G. 2 Gopal Prasad s/o Sahas, caste Gond, occupation driver of vehicle, resident of village Madawa, Chandrapur, distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. 3 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General tnsurance Company through Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, registered office ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra, (East) Mumbai - 400051 (Maharashtra) Appeal ynder Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri M.K. Sinha, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.3. ,-^ ORDER (27th June, 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 4* Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No.14/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,98,000/-claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Dhaneshram Rathiya by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interesf @ 7.5% 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 Dhaneshram Rathiya died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.10.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.C.G.13/A-6444; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, »"s ^ the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 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.15,000/- per annum 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' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiptier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.42,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Dhaneshram Rathiya in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment.. 6) Shri M.K. Sinha, 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 of Rs.2,12,000/- only. ^/ *!' < ^"^^ "¥<„ S ;!&&Ss., ^ •^^^ 7) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Vijay Kumar Agrawal, owner of the offending vehicle Dumper also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is impori:ant 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,12,0007- 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 Dhaneshram Rathiya used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month from agriculture, no cpgent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. We, therefore, 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 ofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Dhaneshram Rathiya was aged about 23 years on the date of the accident, in our opinion, he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2005 even by working as an unskHled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) 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. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, and parents, we are of the 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 fhe 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 Dhaneshram Rathiya 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 -.--A & 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. 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal bf 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.59,000/- at Rs.6,000/-, 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rs.59,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. > Sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu