HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SiNKA, J, Misc. Appeal No.180 of 2004 » 1 Smt Kusum Bai, Wd/o Late Swaroop Mahara, Aged 25 years 2 Arjun Das, S/o Svraroop Das Mahara, aged 7 years 3 Ku. Amarkarkali, S/o Swaroop Das Mahara, 9 years 4 Dhanesh Kumar, S/o Swaroop Das Mahara, 5 years No.2 to 4 minor through natural guardian mother Smt Kusym Bai, Wd/o Late Swaroop Das All R/o Village Dindori (MP) at present through Sahasram Dheemar, R/o Bandha, PO Bandha, Tah & PS Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Driver 2 3 VERSUS Sadanand Gupta, aged 32 years, S/o Janakram Gupta, R/o Vill Kota, Tahsil Kota Distt Bilaspur, At present R/o Production Forest Deptt Lormi, Distt Bilaspur (CG) (Driver Truck No.CPZ- 7137) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector Bilaspur (CG) Conservator of Forest Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) laneous Appeal under Section 173 of --> Motor Vehides Act Present : Shri Gautam Kshetrapal and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri JA Lohani, Panei Lawyer for the State. .•:.^{ <"'": ; 1. ORDER •th (25m February, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. This is claimarts' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by th^ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.01.2004, passe^ in Claim Case No.41/2000. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,80,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow -and minor children of deceased Swaroop Dasbyfiling a claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor aceident on 13.01.2000, when the Government Truck belonging to the Forest Department bearing registration No.CPZ-7137 in which the deceased was traveling as a labour met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving ofthedriver and overturned resulting in his death, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum froiti the dateofthe filingofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entjre evidence led before if h^ld that deceasedSwaroop Das died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.01.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CPZ-7137; as \,':' II ."L'^ s! the State Government was owner ofthesaid Truek, the same was liable to pay cpmpensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfindlity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the inGome of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second ScRedule under Seetion 163-A of the Motor Vehiele Aet. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towarcls the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency.af^s.1Q,OQCy-witMthemultjplierof 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs;1,5Q,000/-. By awardjng furthersumofRs.7,000/-underotherheads^theTribunaliawarded a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation to the clainiants for the death of deceased Swaroop Das in the motor accident. The TribunalfurtherdireeteGipaymentofinterestontlieaboveamount of compensation of Fte.1,57.0CM)/- @ 9% per annum from the date ofSling of the claim petition till thextate ofactual payment. 6) Shri Gautam Kshetrapal and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned -counsel for the appellantssubmitted that the Tribunal has erred jn not acce|ating Ihe claimants' evidence about th^ income 6f the ^ • .'/ -. .:•• .''.; ;'.:'.:' ... ." : '•••..•';';:'.'::' ".' '•-^- '.'";-.... '-: :' ..^..'-:"- deceased and iniassessing hisiincome at Rs.15,OQQ/- per annum only^ in seleeting the lower mi.tltiplierlQf 15, and in awarding low eompensation of Rs.1,57,000/- only; •s^\ ';.rfi! w s^-^ J-'1 7) Shri JA Lohani learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2 State of Chhattisgarh and respondent No.3 Conservator of Forest, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is fhat the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall exannine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,57.000/- awardedby e Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthe-factsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceasect Swaroop Das used to earn Rs.1 OO/- per day, the evidence ted In that behalf was highly discrepant. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Neverthetess, the income ofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunaiat Rs.15,000/- perannum in the year 2000 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. •- / ' ' '' •• -' 15) Considerihg the fact that deceased Swaroop Daswas aged .about 33 years oh the date oftheaceident, we areof theopinion thattheTribunal oughtto have assessed his income at Rs.18,000/- per annum. . We, therefore, propose to re-compute the -MJ»S"'>-S( 0:;^?sni,: " /E"'; ':1 '" 1: ^J" ^..RKy "s1 :x Cadrtna compensationbytakingtheincomeofthedeceasedatRs.18,000/- perannum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3"t of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, ttie elaimants^ dependeney is assessedatRs.12,000/-perannum. 14) , Considering the age of the cleceased, Kis widpw and chNren, we are of the opinion that multjplier of 1fi \rould be appropriateinthepresentcase. 15) BymultipiyingtheannuatdepenclgnGyofRs.12,000/-wjtftthe mUltiplier of 16, the compensatiQn worksout to Rs.1,92,000/-. Thfe clairnants areifurther entitled to reeeiye Rs:10.OQO/- towards Yuneral expenses, lossof^state auE^ losspfii^ The Glaimante, tlius,^ becxime e^ of Rs.2,02,OCM3/-ascompensationfortM&death^ofcleceasedSWaroop Das in the mot6r;accielent 16) For the feregoir^wFeasoii^,®^^^ appellants/ claimants fog^han»GW^^ alleHA^ JB part. %etTOffii|3( a^^ theTriburial isenhanced t&Rs.2^2,0(^. The enhancectiamount of compenSation sMall carry jnterest @ 6^^^^^^^^ dateoffilingof eelaim|^itiontil!aBe];dat6;^actuaKpiayme^ 17) No order as tQ costs. ;. ?::^ Sd/- Chief Jusdce •I Sd/- ri SunilKumar Sinha 1; Judge ^ i'."