^!^^"1*^'^ i'lJ!*??SUE^n''Ste'^?B"-3S;is.'-;%1 ^^'^^^^^^^'^^"^^^^8 ;&.£.' ^l^E' ^ v^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Y Misc. ADDealNo. 588 ol2006 Appellants Claimants 1) Smt. Kevra Bai, Wd/o Ganeshram Verma, aged about 43 yrs. 2) Sarojani Bai, Wd/o Ganeshram Verma, aged about 40 yrs. 3) Mohan S/o Ganeshram Verma, aged about 06 yrs. 4) Jai Prakash, S/o Ganeshram Verma, aged about 3 yrs., on behalf of the appellants No. 3 and 4 his mother Sarojani Bai, R/p Village & Post Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Non-a@plicants Versus 1) Sashi Kumar, S/o Shambhudas Manikpuri, Thr. M/s Steel Abresiv Industries Ltd., 740/0 Sector B urla Industry Compiex, Raipur, P.S. Urla Distt. Raipur (C.G.) » 2) M/s Steel Abresiv Industries Ltd. 740/D SectorB urla Industry Complex, Raipur, P.S. Urla Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through : Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Appealunder Section 173 ofthe IVIotorVehiclesAct, 1994) (SB: Hon'ble ShriJustice Rangnath Chandrakar) Present: Mr. S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. JVIr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 13th April, 2011) 90SS' This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, "the Tribunal"), Raipur vide award dated 5th July, 2005 passed in claim case No. 7/2004. As against the compensation of Rs. 4,65,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widows and sons of deceased Ganesh Ram Verma by filing a claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on. 27.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a tptal sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum wtthin two months, in the event of insurer's failure, simple interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' husband and father Ganesh Ram Verma died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accidenton 27.10.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No. C.G.04-G-3043; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the United Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Jnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the daimants. '% s lte"s8§&!,, t ""1:%>~. / / ^ss-^' ./f 6. 7. ('^ As the respondents have not filed any', appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 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 multiplier of 15, the.-compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Byadding further sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their husband and father Ganesh Ram Verma in the motor accident. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- only. He further argued that the Tribynal ought to have appreciated the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month looking to the nature of job of the deceased and the learned Tribunal also ought to have applied multiplier of 18 in the present case. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/United Insurance Co. Ltd. contended that ', •^...•3:Sih 1 :1 ''fwSyws,, j i:i ~" the Tribunal has awarded proper cqmpensation to the claimants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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, l shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that their husband and father Ganesh Ram Verma was working as Security Guard in Urla Factory, no reliable and cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this context, any other person of the said company was not examined before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, 1 do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. Wffei^^^Sg^^^^^ n 12. Nevertheless, the income of the deceasied assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the years 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13. Considering that deceased Ganesh Ram Verma, on the date of accident, was aged about 45 years and was working in Urla Factory as Security Guard, 1 am of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs. 80-90 per day even by working as an unskilled labour. I, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2500/- per month andRs. 30,000/- perannum. 14. As deceased Ganesh Ram Verma was married on the date of accident and had two sons and two wives, 1/3 of Rs. 30,000/- is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses. I, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. 15. By multiplying'the annual dependency of Rs. 20,000/-with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The claimants are fUrther entitled to receive Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, thus, claimants become entitled to receive a total sumof Rs. 3,02,0007-as compensation for the death of their husband and father Ganesh Ram Verma in the motor accident. 16. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,52,000/-. By deducting Rs.1,52,000/- from Rs.3,02,000/-, the difference comes to Rs.1,50,000/-, which the appellants are entitled to f \-"i. receive as the enhanced amount of cpmpensation for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram Verma in the motor accident on27.10.2003. 17. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 3,0007- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by the triburral is enhanced to Rs.3,02,000/-with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 19. Respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- towards enhanced amountof compensation + Rs. 3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-)before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- Ransnath Citandrakar Judge Vijay 1