ORDER (06“‘ January, 201 1) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants’ appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, ‘Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.01 .2005, passed in Claim Case No.471f2004. 2) As against the compensation of'Rs.12,44,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, children and mother of deceased Jeevanlal Sinha, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 221 1 .2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.11 .2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,73,530/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of the insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 8) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Jeevanlal Sinha died on 22.11.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.11.2003; the accident occurred due to rash‘and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No.C.G.-05A/1370; as the above motorcycle, on the date of the accident was insured with the United lndia insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish a ‘Z‘x any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied 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 1/3” of Rs.1 5,000/-, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 0,000I- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 11, the ‘compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses and Rs.58,530/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,73,530!- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jeevanlal Sinha in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,73,530/— @ 6% per annum in the event of k insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 6) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in noti, accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/-per annum only; in selecting (L Ti‘t"‘ 2} the l0wer multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,73,530/- only‘ 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United lndia insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,73,530/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) ln 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 case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,73,530/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jeevanlal Sinha used to earn Rs.10,000/— per month from his transport business, the evidence led in that behalf does not establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.10,000/— per month. In the income- tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2002-2003, a copy whereof was produced before the Tribunal has been marked as EXP/12, the income from business has been shown to be Rs.24,000l— per annum. ln this state of evidence, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000!— per annum. we, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000l- per annum. 11) By deducting the usuat 1/3” of Rs.24,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.‘1 6,000/— per annum. 12) Deceased Jeevaniai Sinha was shown to be 55 years of age in his postmortem report. The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal, therefore, is appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 11 was prescribed for the age group between 51-55 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,76,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000l- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000f- for toss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow. By adding further sum of Rs.58,530/— awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,49,530/— as compensation for' the death of deceased Jeevanlal Sinha in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeai and the fact that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/- at Rs.7,000/—. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,73,530/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,49,530/- with further quantified amount of interest ‘ of ’Rs.7,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/—. 17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.83,000i- (Rs.76,000i— towards enhanced 'amount of compensation + Rs.7,000l'- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. l/ SuniItKumar Sinha l (3def.hnnhm I 7H Judge ¢ .sQl- ‘< I / sdl— subbu Judge 7/“ ’ e t f—V/r¥—_ / ,