ii\RH M‘ EEASWR Dimsgow BENSH §C@RAM: HGN‘SLE SFiRi RAJEEV GBT’TA, CJ. HON’BLE SHR! RAMS-MATH CHANDRAKAR,J EE No.654 Gf 26W Smt Kaussaiya Bai, aged about 28 years, Wfo Rajkumar @ Kumar 2 Sanjay, aged abaut 7 years, S/o Rajkumar @ Kumar 3 Kumwi Maniu, aged abeut E yers, D/o Rajkumar @ Kumar $mt Savitri Bai, aged about 55 years. ‘ W/o Banu Ram 5 Benu Ram, aged about 66 years, Sio Bhok smgh V Appe!§ant No.2 8; 3 are represented by iega: guardian mather omt Kausa§ya Bai AH are residents of Kushaipur, Tahsi! and Distt Raiou.’ {CG} V Apneiiants ‘ C£a§mants Versus Resgmndents 1 Pratap Singh Sagan aged about 24' N‘oo-a‘poHcaote yeai'e, 8/6 Chamra Ban Singh, Occupation Jeep Driver, Rio Kalinagar, Pandari, Rahour {CG} 2 Smt Sukhbat? Sagan 'Gocupation Vehicke Owner, Rio Kakinagar, Pandarh RaipuHCG) 3 The National inswance Company Limited, Branch Office Ne.2, Raipur Through Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Mobin Mahai, Tahsii and Bistt Raipur(CG) Mieeeiianeous Angeai under Sectien 173 of the Mater ilehicie Act Wesent : Shri Aditya Khare, counsei i’orthe appeiiants. None for resnondents No.1 8: 2 thnugi’i served. Shri Gautarn Khetrapai, caunsei for respondent No.3. ORQER {5m January, 2am) The foimwing order of the Court was passed by “aj3gv Guam. $.J. x This is claimants’ appeai for enhancement cf the compensation'awarded; by the Seventh Addiiicnai Motor Accident ‘ Claims Tribunai Raipur (W short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated é 18.04.2062 passed in Ciaim Case No.32/2OGD. i2) The appeiiants/olaimants: unfortunate widow. children and parents of deceased Rajkumar @ Kumar claimed compensaiion of § Rs.28,00,000f—, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 1'86 of the Meter Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on l l 29052300, when the jeep in which he was traveling met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in multiple serious iniuries to Rajkumar @ Kumar, who succumbed to i jthose injuries. The ciaimants further pleaded that deceased ’3 Rajkumar @ Kumar used to earn Rs.5,GDGf- per month as tailor. i 3 3) The owner, driver and inswer of the offending vehicle jeep l contested the ciaim and denied their liability to pay compensation ’ to the claimants. The insurer of the jeep took the further plea that l the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving license and the i jeep was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. - ./’W l l l 4): i The ciaimants examined AWN Smt Keussaiya Bai and AW/2 Sh:ankarla§ in support of their dam: in rebutiai, the driwr" of the jeep examined himeeif as MAW/1. 5); The fribuna on a close scrutiny a? the evidence §ed before §t } ¥ \ he‘jd that deceased Rajkumai' @ Kumar died on account of ihe mi Y L eni occurieci due to résh and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie jeep; as the offending vehioie ieeo on the date ofithe eccident was insured with the Nationei insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 5)§ The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,0D0/— per month and Rs.36,GGG/- per annurn. By deducting Rs.i,500f— per month towatds the persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.18,GDG/'~ pet annum. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.18,GGD/— with the muitipiier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,70,GDO/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5.GDD/— towards ioss oficonsortium to the widow and Rs.2,000/— towards funerat expenses, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,77,00€tl— as i cotnpensatton to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Raikumar @ Kumar . The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above compensation of Rs.2,77,DGD/— @‘ ?% per annum from the date of the ftiing of the cia‘rm petition titi the date of actual payment. \l ,4“ \ ‘uries i sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.05.2006; the i i,‘ 81C / \ l . \ 7)i Shri Adiiya Khare, iearned counse! for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants‘ evidence abeut the income cf the deceased and in l assessing his income at Rs.3,00G/- per menth cnly; in deducting SEW/la of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation ef Rs.2,77,0GG/- o‘niy‘ r V " 8)‘ ' Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The National insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not estabtish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.2,77,0G0l— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present caSé. 9) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the axlivard: the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased l Rjaikumar @. Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle jeep; and the insurer of the offending vehicle jeep was liable t0 pay i ccmoensation to) the claimants have now attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. lb} in 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 icase. 1t should neither‘be a meager amount of oomoensation. nor x x § a bonanza. < ‘ \ 11) Now, we snail examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,77,000l- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rajkumar @ i V " i iKumar used to earn Rs.5,G00i- oer month as taiior‘ but the evidence ied in that behaif was not of oiinchinu nature. in this state . iof evidence. the Tribunai was ieft with no other option, but to i i assess the income of the deceased in its own estimate. :13) On due consideration we do not find any infirmity in the I assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.3.0DGI— oer month i and Rs.36,600i— per annum. i 14) The Tribunai has faiien into error in deducting further sum of ‘ RsSOGl- towards other expenses of the deceased after deducting i i § i 1!3’d of Rs.36,QOO/- towards his persona! expenses. We, therefore, ‘ propose to re—compute the compensation taking the dependency of ithe claimants at Rs.24,000!- per annum after deducting U3” of‘ Rs.36,DOD/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 15‘; The multipiier of 15 selected by the Tribunai considering that deceased Raikumar @ Kumar was aged about 3t) years on the l date of the accident and his widow Kaussalya Bat was shown to be i 28 years of aoe cannot be found fauit with. . 16) By multipfying the annual dependency of Rs.24,0DO/- with the 1 multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.3,6D,OGOI-. The i i l l lciaimants are further entitied to get Rs.5,GGD/- towards funerai éexpenses; Rs.5,00G/- for ioss of estate; and Rs.S,OGG/- for loss of {consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitted to ireceive a totai sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for the death fof deceased Rajkumar @ Kumar in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a View to {avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for i u " ‘which the claimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced iamount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai itseif. i18) Considering all the reievant factors inciuding the deiav in a l jdispesai of the ciaim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire ldeiay in the matter, we quantify thetamount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,GOG/— at Rs.7.DOO/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai fried by the ciaimants gfor enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,77,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,75,DOO/- with further quantified amount of interest bf Rs.7,000I- on the enhanced amount of compensation of tRS.Q8,00GJ-. t2D‘) Respondent No.3 TheNational insurance Company Limited :is granted three months‘ time for depositing the totai sum of gRs.1,G5,0GDf— (Rs.98,000/- towards enhanced amount of pompensation + Rs.7,000/— towards quantified amount of interest l l :mm A an ) the enhanced amount of compensaticn) befare the concerning :Ciaims Tribunai. K E21) No order as to costs. A f $df *i Sd/_ R.N.Chandlakal CHIEF JUSTICE ‘ t» ‘, \