-p.^. •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: APPELLANTS CLAtMANfS HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.No. 152 of 2005 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANT Vs. 1. B Smt. Meera Devt, Widow of Shyam Bihari, aged about32 years, Ku. Jyoti, D/o Shyam Bihari, Aged about-12years, Ku Gudia, D/o Shyam Bfhari, Aged about -10 years, Mangal Singh, S/o Shyam Biharl, Aged about OSyears, Pankaj Singh, S/o Shyam Bihari, Aged about 06 years Ku. Rani, D/o Shyam Bihari, Aged about04years, Ku. Soni, D/o Shyam Bihari, figed about 01 year, Applicant No. 2 & 7 are represented by legal guardian, Mother Applicant No.1, All are R/o Village - Sudama Chopkar Bada, Marathapara, Gram - Hirapur, Post- Tendua, PS- Amanaka, Tah & Distt - Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Gango Oevi, W/o Srt Bachcha Singh, Aged about 56 years, Occupation House Wife, R/o Wllage Nouka, Badka, Baiju Tola, PS & Tahsil - Goutam Sthan, Distt - Chhapra, (Bihar) Sukhbinder Singh, S/o Gurmq Smgh, Aged about 40 years, R/o Mr. % Hanuman Para, Mulan Golony, Mumbai T.G. 74, PS, Muland Bombay, 82 Present Acklress : Khalsa Roadways Ringh Road, No.2, Village - Godwara, PS Uria, Raipur (C.G.) Through : Roadways Road, No.2, Gogaon, Ps- Urta, Distt. Raipur. Sukhbinder Singh, S/o Sardar Gurjeet Singh Taigore, Haji Chal, No.6, R.1999 Vakroli, Mumbai 83 (Maharashtra) C Sardar Sukhbinder Singh Through : Major Singh, S/o Sardar Gurdeep Singh, R/o Mulun Colony, Ps - Muland, Mumbal, 82 (Maharashtra) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Branch Code No. 121500, M.C.D.O. 6, Indian Mareantile Chambers, Fourth Floor, R.K. h4aig, Belard, State, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Through : DMsional Manager, The Oriental India Company, Firet Floor, Vijaya Bank, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1973 Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No. 1 A,B and C. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel wt Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER !th (25m February, 280!^ The following order of.the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ Thte ®claimants' appeal for enhancement of Vhe compensatlon awarded by the 12t Additionat Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal'), vide award dated 27.10.2004, passed in Claim Case No.53/2004. 2) The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiUren and mother of deceased Shyambihari filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby a sum of RS.13,^,000/- was claimed as compensation for the death of deceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2(X)2, when his bicycle was dashal by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MP 230/6591, resulting in his jnstantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Shyambihari was a Skttled Labour and was eaming Rs.6,000/- per month by working in a Steel Rolling 3) The owner -cum- driver did not contest the clalm and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The Insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the Truck was not holdlng a valkl driving licence and Uie Truck was being plied in breach ofthe policy conditions. 4) The claimants examined AW-1 M^ra Devt, ftW-2 Brijbihari Singh and AW-3 Ravindra Singh in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the deceased Shyambihari died on account of ttie Injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 14.05.2(M2; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of ttie driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was Insured with the Oriental Insurance Company LImited, the Insurance Compsuny was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the fleceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3"1 of Rs.24,000/- towards pereonal expenses of the deceased, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- G^ ''iit——;71-:?< '•1'~..5^ ^ •>' per annum. By multlplying the annual dependency of Rs.16.000/- with the multipller of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,OCX)/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the deatti of deceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2002. The Tribunal further directed payment of intere^: on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- @ 6% per annumfrom the date of filing ofthe ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri A.L. Singraul, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepUng the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and In assessing his Income at Rs.2,(XX)/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum; in deducting 1/3"' of the income of the deceasal towards his personal e^enses; in selectlng lower multiptier of 16; and in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.2,71,000/- only. 8) Shrf Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Senior Gounsel wlth Shri Ajay Mishra, teamed counsel for respondent No.2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Llmited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The findings recorded by the Trlbunal that deceased Shyambihari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.05.2002; the driver of the offendir^ vehicle Tmck was pesponsible Tor the accident; and the insurer of the Truck was llabte to pay compensation to the cteimants, have now attalned finality as the respondents have not flled anyappeal against award. That apart, there Is overwhelmtr^ evidence available on record for esteblishing the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findlngs recordal by the Tribunal in that behalf. 10) The compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunate in a motor claim case shoukt be just and proper compensation. ft should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 11) Now, we shall examine as to whether <he cOTnpensatlon of Rs.2,71,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and prq»er compensation in the facte and circumstances of the present case. 12) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shyamblhari used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Stdlled Labour in a Rolling Mill, but the evidence of AW2 Brljbihari Stngh and AW-3 Ravindra Singh is not of ctinching nature. We, th^efore, do not Tind any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal In discarding the claimants' evldence about the income ofthe deceased. 13) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side. The Tribunal while dlsearding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed In the Second Schedule under Sectton 183-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. ^^ 14) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed In the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and deceased Shyambihari lost hls life in the motor accident which took ptace In the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essentlal commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 (the year of accident in the present case) is taken into consideration, the notfonal income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year f994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the notlonal income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15) What would be the appropriate cteduetton towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased would depend OTI the faets and cireumstances of each ease. No hard and fast critertacan be laid down in that behalf. Consldering the Income of the deceased, his age, the number of the dependents on the Income of the deceased and their age, we are of the opinion that the deduction of usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be appropriate in the pr^ent case. By deductlng 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal ©(penses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 16) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, hfe widow and their chiklren cannot be Tound fault wlth. By multiplying the annual dependenoy of Rs.20,(XM)/- with the muNlplier of 16, the compensation wori®out /y^ to Rs.3,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards tess of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a trtal sum of Rs.3,35,00)/- as compensation for the death of cteceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2002. 17) Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a view of avoid any possible dlspute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to recelve interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the iRter^ on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantffled In thfe appeal itself. 18) Considering all the relevant factors including 8ie delay In disposal of the claim petitton and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company atone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,000/- at Rs.16,(XX)/". 19) For the foregotng reasons, the appeal flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.3,35,000/- wlth further quarrtified amount of interest of Rs.16,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,000/-, 20) Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Limtted is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.80,(X)0/- (Rs.64,000/- towards enhanced amount of /Tit \^'y^ Is compensation + Rs.16,000/- towards quantifled amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,000/-) before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. — . ___.----^==^ subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd7- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge