.p.^, HIQH GOURT OF GHHIO'TISGARH ATBIL^PUR DIVISION BENCH /? CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEiV @UPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Aopeal No.519 of 20®3 --W '\-- L ^.-. Appellants Clahnants 1. Smt. ChameU Bal W/o Himata^i Gond, Aged about 26 years. 2. Tarun Kumar S/o Himalaya Gond Aged about 5 years. 3. Ku. Manisha D/o Hlmalaya Gond, Aged about 3 years. 4. Arun Kumar S/o Himalaya Gond, Aged about 8 months, Through legal Guardian Smt. Chameti Bai Wd./o Himalaya Gond. (All residents village Charama Tah. Charama, Distt. Kanker, preseRt address Danitola Ward, Dhamitari.) Versus 1 Ghaman Slngh S/o Tutei Ram, Occupation: Driver MP 033-B/NCC Batattion, Sagar P.S. Gopal Ganj, Tah. & Distt. Sagar. 2 Commanding Offleer (Vehtete Owner) 33 NCC Batetlion Sagar, Tah. & Distt. Sagar. 3. - Unfon of India Through Ministry of Defence.New DelN. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Mtrtor Vehicte Act. Present : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondents No.2and3. Resoondents 1 ^<£^y -s^ v (:; -/- ORDER (04th January, 2011) The following order of the Gourt was passed by l^ijeev Oupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancemerrt of the compensation awarded by4he Additional Motor Aecictent Clalim Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.01 i2003, passed tn Claim Case No.210/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,SO,000/-, Glaimed by the appellants/clairoants, unfortunate widow and minor ^Kildren of deceased Himalaya Gond, by filing a ctaimpetition under Seetlon 166 of the Motor Vehicl< Act, for his death in the m©toraccictent on 06.07.1W9, the Tribunal awarded a total sum <rf Rs.2,72,^<»- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per aRRum tom th® date of filing of the claiin pet'rtion till the date of actual papfierrt. 3) The Tribunal on a close scnrtlny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Himalaya Gond died on aceoynt of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.07.19^; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offendlng vehicte Truck bearlng regtetratton No.33MP-88D/ 7595; as the above offending vehicte Truck beloa^l to Union of India, the same was liable to pay compensation to the claimante. 4) As tie respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Trtbunal have now attalned finality. .;-?£23'®sh%,, /"€.''i\ x^^ l' -^ V- L: V.J '7 5) The Tribunal assessed the Income of the deceased at Rs.4,735/- per month. By deductlng Rs.2,OOQ/- towarcte the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependenc^ was assessed at Rs.2,735/- per month and Rs.32,820/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,820^- witti the multlplier of 8, the compensation was workecfe^ut to Rs.2^2,^^-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,72,560/- as compeosgrtlon to the daimants for the death of deceased Himalaya Gond in the motor accident. The Tribunal further dtrected payment of intere^ on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.2,72,S60/- @ 7.8% perannum from the date of filing c^ ie daim petltlon tiH the date of actualpayment. 6) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, leamed counsel for Ihe appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deductinsi Rs.2,<X)0/- towards personal expenses of the deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of8; and in awardlng low compensation of Rs.2,72,560/- only. 7) Shri S.S. Rajput, teamed eounwl for responctente No.2 and 3. on the other hand, supported the awardand eontended that the compensation of Rs.2,72,560/- awarcled by the Tribynart is just and proper compensation in the faets and circumsten©esof the present case. 8) In a m6tor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate shoyld te just and proper compensation in the facts and circumsteinces of the .€t^^?^ ,^?f €'\ 1! t<Sfe ! ^KB^ St.3.Kh£—"1 •^ V. -^.J 2^ 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.2,72.560/- awarded by the Tribunal te |ust 8ml proper compensation in the facts and circumstwces ofthe preserrt case. 10) The daimants c^nnot have any legitlmate grievanee about the sssessment of the Income of the deces®edby the Tribunal at Rs.4,735/- per month as thesalary certtficate of the cteceased produced by the claimants before the Tribunal establish the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,735/- per month only. 11) The Tribunal certainly has fallen into errorin deducttng Rs.2,000/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased and in selecting the lower multlplier of 8. 12) Inour considered opinion, deductton of Rs.1,735/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased would be appropriate in the present case. We, therefore, by deducting Rs.1,735/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that the deceased was 30years of age on the date of the acddent as pleaded by the daimants in their claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.36,000/- wtth the multiplier of 16,the compensation works out to Rs.8,76,000/-. The claimants are further^ntitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral ^-33t^ ^•' ,'{:'. ^ '^ % ^..<?'^. ^ ?. . 'r^ •/ ^l^J^ .^r ......J v ^/ expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,OCX)/- towards loss of consortium to the wklow. The claimante, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.5,91,000/- as compensatlon for the death of deceased Himalaya Gond in the motor accldent. 15) For the foregolng reasons, the appeal fited by the appellants/ctalmants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2.72,5^)/- awarded by the Tribunal Is enhanoed to Rs.5,91,000/-. The enhan(^d amount of compensation shall carry jnterest @ 6% per annum frem the date of filing of the claim pet'rtion till the date of actual payment. 16) Respondents No.2 and 3 are granted three months' time for depositing the enhanced amount of compensation along wlth interest thereon before the conceming Clalms Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu