;y^ =:,R •4\ "^^k ••'-.!• b'l @. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIYISJON BENCH Appellants Claimants HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1154 of 2005 1. Smt. Tijiya Bai aged about 27 years W/o Late Krishna Kumar Maheshwari. 2. Deepak Kumar aged about 9 years. 3. Ku. Hempushpa aged about 6 years. 4. Ku. Dayawati aged about 4 years. 5. Hariram aged about 55 years S/o Purshottam MaheshVvari 6. Smt. Jira Bai W/o Hariram All are R/o Village Semariya, P.S. Mova, Tah S Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appellant No. 2 to 4 are the son of Krishna Kumar Maheshwari. s'»!«ta|gi», Versus 1. K. Kondal Rao,S/o Venkatpaiya R/o 61=22/1-5, R.L. Nagar, Vijaywada (A.P.) (Driver of Truck No. A.H.H.3268) 2. A. Samba Shiva Rao, S/o A. Chandra Raiya, R/o D.L. 0-7-13 Maylawram, Distt. Krishna (A.P.) (Owner ofTruck No. A.H.H. 3268) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) Branch Office : tochahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Policy No. 620800/31/02/09002 From date 31.12.03to 30.12.04 4. Rambaran Verma aged about 40 years, S/o Ramji Verma, R/o Village Donde urd P.S. Mandir, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ''atSfe-: 'fs"^'SV~Wi' '^- ataBnlil (Driver & Owner of the Jeep No. C.G. 04-T.O./0891) The New india Assurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Madeena Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) IWemo^of Appeal under Section 173 of the Present; Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appeilants. None for respondents No. 1, 2& 4. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counse! with Shri Anand Gupta, iearned counsei for respondent No.5. >nd The foli order of the Court was oassed This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 12 Addittonal Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, F.T.C., Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.02.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.22/2004. 2) The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari, claimed compensation of Rs.17,61,500/- by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.01.2004, when the Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 04T.0.891 in which he was travetiing with his friends was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. A.H.H. 3268, resulting in multiple serious injuries to .,^-f^S%S* .^y" li^:3j^^^{i:s9 ./'jf^ ^ f 1 •-sssge, g %, i. 'S rf? °»!.,.|i>.»-<i''./" ''••'ts;.-.--" Krishna Kumar Maheshwari who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari was aged about 30 years and used to earn Rs.200/- per dav and Rs.6,000/- per month as Painter. 3) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte before the Trlbunal. 4) The insurer of the offending vehicie Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the piea that the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the Truck was being piied in breach of the poiicy conditions. 5) The driver of the Jeep and the insurer of the Jeep aiso denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck. 6) The ciaimants examined AW1 Tijiya Bai and AVrf2 Roshan Lal in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the Truck and Jeep and the driver of the Jeep dld not examine any witness in 7) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.01.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New BK'fetaftaBil' Assurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,320/- per month and Rs.15,840/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 pf ths 'income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,840/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,840/- with the muitipiier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,73,440/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,80.440/- as compensation to the daimants for the death of deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ;80,440/- from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tili the date of actua! payment 9) Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counset for the appellants submitted that the Tribunat has erred in not acceDtino the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1 ,320/- per month and Rs.15,840/- per annum on!y; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,80,440/- 3) Shri Raj Awasthi, iearned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicie Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that though the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pieaded by them, the Tribunal has ..^y ^i,- ||l6tHKJ3jg,^ been quite liberal in awarding substantiai amount of Rs.1,80,440/- as compensation to the claimants. 11) Shri Shreekumar Agrawai, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5, insurer of the Jeep in which the deceased was traveiling also supported the award. 12) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased 1^'ishna Kumar Maheshwari died on account of the injuries sustained bv him in the motor accident on 01.01.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck was liable to psy compensation to the claimants are based on the evidence available on record. These findinas are not chailenge before us in this appeal. That apart, these findings now have attained finality, as the respondents have not filed anv appeal against the award. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. Now, vve shall examine as to whether the compensation of ,440/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) !n a moior accident ciaim case, what is important is that the compensation to i)e 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 nor a bonanza. 15) The claimants pleaded that deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari, who was aged about 30 years used to eam Rs.6,000/- per month as Painter. The evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunai in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 16) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,320/- per month and Rs.15,840/- per annum is certainly on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 17) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed the Income of ihe deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 18) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari iost his iife, took ptace in the year 2004. !f the increase in the prices of the essentiai commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2004, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- 19) By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 20) Considering that deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari was aged about 30 years and his widow Smt. Tijiya Bai is shown to be 27 years of age in the ciaim petition, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 13 wouid be appropriate in the present case, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New india Assurance Co. Ud Vs Kaipana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825. 21) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the muitipiier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- tov/ards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortlum to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Krishna Kumar Maheshwari in the motor accident. 22) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period for which the c!aimants are entitled to receive interest on the snhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 23) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased KrishnaKumar Maheshwari lost his life took piace in the year 2004; the ciaim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2004; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2005; and the present appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the detay in disposal of the ciaim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone 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.94,560/- at Rs.10,440/-. 24) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeliants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,80,440/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,440/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,560/-. 25) Respondent No.3 The New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicie Truck is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.94,560/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,440/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,560/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 26) No order as to costs. Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Judge 'iimmi