^?-\ s vf £/^ -'I^^ -T^.r^. ^Q-^'^o^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Wlisc. Appfeal ^No. 1122 of 2004 Appellants Claimants 1. Smt. Janki Bai, wd/o late Nutan Singh Gond, aged about 24 years. 2. Ku. Khusabu, d/o late Nutan Singh Gond, aged about 4 years. 3. Ku. Vipat @ Pooja, d/o late Nutan Singh Gond, aged about 1 month. 4. Dashrath Singh, s/o late Baijnath Singh Gond, aged about 52 years. 5. Smt. Braj Bai, w/o. Dashrath Singh Gond, aged about 50 years No.2 and 3 minor, through natural guardian, mother Smt. Janki Bai wd/o late Nutan Singh Gond, All r/o. village Sirki, P.S. Pali, tahsil Pali, district Korba C.G. VERSUS Respondents Driver Owner Insurer ^ 1. Ram Khilawan Rathore, s/o Shri P. Rathore, r/o village Nevsa Hardibazar Chowk, P.S Kusmunda, tahsil Katghora, district Korba C.G. 2. Depot Officer, Regional Store Gevra Area, S.E.C.L. Gevra, tahsil Katghora, dist.ict Korba C.G. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, City Branch Office, Transport Nagar, Korba C.G. ,</ M.A.No.1122 of 2004 7 7- Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (28InSeptember,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 31.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No.83/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,34,160/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Nutan Singh Gond, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.08.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- 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 Nutan Singh Gond died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.08.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.12/7017; as theabove offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was ww ^^ •< MA.No. 1122 of 2004 •2S- insured with the Oriental 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) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The T[ibunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 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 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nutan Singh Gond in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Vijay Sahu, 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 awardinglow compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriehtal Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending 'VWV i|F!i!iyTCii n^^SSSS^^^ MA.No. 1122 of 2004 u ^ vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the driver ofthe offending vehicle Jeep also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunals should bejust 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.1,93,000/- 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 Nutan Singh Gond used to earn Rs.75-1 OO/- per day as porter/ toader and the evidence before the Tribunal was to the effect that the deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day. 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 ofthe deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceasedNutan Singh Gond was aged about 26 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-80/- per day even by SKV ss' iliilfll i]pi]iqi|"-TIaR°ll! .^^i-^m^^^s® ^iSM^ii^s-i^ L^;lgaL^LiLLiLJj: peyiiuenb eq AELU uoiiesusdiuoo ^o )unoiue paouEque 341 uo issjeiui io }unoLue 841 'uoi^esuedLuoo p lunouje psoueque SL)} uo tsejsiui 9A1939J 01 p3|t!tU9 9JE StUBLUIBIO si|i qoiqm joj poued eqi inoqe leunqui 941 ejojeq seiijed sqi uesMiaq eindsip eiqissod Aue PIOAE 0} M91A e qtim IBL|I pauiujqns saiijed 94} joj lasunoo psujee-i (^.i. •):U3P!03B JOfOLU 94) ui puoo 4Bui9 uB)nN paseeoep p L|lB8p aqi JOj uoiiesuediuoo se -/ooO'SS'S'sy 10 iuns |E}OI e eAieoej 01 p8|}!}ue eiiiooaq 'snq} 'siueiuieio sqi -MopiM eqi Q} Lunitjosuoo ^0 sso| jo^ -/000'9'sa Pue :3}eiS9 jo sso| joj -/000'9'sy Isssusdxe |BJ9unj spjeMoi -/OOO'S'sy 9A1303J oi p3|t!}ue jsqijn^ SJB stUBLUiep aqi '-/OOO'Ofr'S'sy 0} }no S)|JOM uoitESUsdiuoo eqi 7|. jo jeiidiiinu 041 qiiM -/OOO'OZ'sy jo Aouapuedep |enuue sq) 6uiA|d!t|nLU Ag (91. 'sjeaA QS-9Z uasMisq dnoj6 aGe 941 jo.( psquosejd ueeq sey ^.i. ^o jeiidiiiniu uisjeifM [,z\, oos 9 (600Z) ui peijodej 'jaqpue pue uoiiejodjOQ ^odsueji 14100 snsjeA sjeytQ pue (ltU9) BuueA e|jes i0 sseo 94} ui pnoo xsdy 841 jo Lunioip 3111 p MeiA ui sseo luesajd sqi ui aieudojdde 9q p|noM /). ^o jsiidiiiniii ieqt uoiuido sq} p SJE SM 'iusppoe 94} p e}ep al|t uo sjeeA gg inoqe peBe SEM puoo L|6uis ue}nN psseeoep ^ei^ Buuspisuoo (31. •unuue jad -/OOO'OZ'sy }e pessesse si Aouepuedap .stueiuiBio eqi 'peseeoap 94} p sesuedxe |euosjad 9i)i spjsMot -/ooo'os'sy 10 pjg/i. isnsn 3L|t 6uipnp9p Ag (^i. •Lunuuejed -/000'OS'sy pue -/009'Z'sy IB psseeoep 9l|} 10 9LUOOUI 8L|} 6U!>|El uoiiEsusdiuoo eqi 9}ndLU039j 01 esodojd '9JOJ9J941 '9/V\ 'EOOZ -IB9A 841 ui 'jnoqB) pa||i>|sun ue se BU!>|JOM <^ wozpzzii. 'ON'VIAI s lii; M.A.No. 1122 of 2004 ^ .(^ 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 the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- at Rs.13,000/-. 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.1,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.1,62,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No orderas to costs. , ^' Sd/- / ^: j ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge nimmi