HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal tC) No. 1398 of2009 Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Smt. Chanda Deshlahre w/o late Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre, aged about 22 years, r/o Pakhanjure, police station andtasil Pakhanjur, district North Bastar C.G. VERSUS Deepankar Kundu s/o C.N. Kundu, aged about 37 years, r/o Tahsil Pakhanjur, district Kanker C.G. (Ownerofvehicle) The New India Insurance Company Limited, near Jhankar Talkies, Jaipur Road; Jagdalplur, district Bastar C.G. (Insurer) Memp of appeal under Section 173 of WIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri O.P.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (14InSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow of deceased Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre is the appellant before us -in this appeal for erihancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional y .f€sr'% •^ '"5%?<^ .<-f MAC.No. 1398 of 2009 ^r. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.36/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,67.000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,0001- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax bearing registration No. C.G. 04/H-3093 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) 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 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards fhe personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Kamal Gabbar Deshlahre in the motor accident. The Tribunal further :^' AC.No. 1398 of 2009 directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,77.000/- only. 6) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri O.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 8)_ Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation_of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the- Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimant pleaded that deceased Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Driver of th6 said Tempo Trax, no cogent and reliable evidence was led AC.No. 1398 of 2009 ^, before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3000/- per month. For the reasons best known to the claimant, even the employer of the deceased was not examined before the Tribunal. In this state ofevidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Deceased Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre, at the time of the accident, was driving the Tempo Trax in question neither was in dispute before the Tribunal nor is under challenge before us in this appeal. As the deceased was working as Driver, his income, in our opinion, ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal atleast at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- perannum. 12) Considering that the widow of the deceased is the sole claimant in the case and there were only two persons dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself and the sole claimant, his widow Smt. Chanda Deshlahre, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 15.000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. AC.No. 1398 of 2009 <-, 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 17, selected by the Tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.2,55,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The clairtiant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband Kamal @ Gabbar Deshlahre in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is 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 appeal itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000/- at Rs.9,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the fcompensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,70,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000/-. 5iS \L^ jf .s:s-a,, ^ ^. .^s-?^ ^ s 8 V tte!?s'?.^ '%-.. :S<rfs'1 A.C.No. 1398 of 2009 17) Respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,02,000/- (Rs.93,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. CHIE' subbu Sd/- CUefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge II