Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, district’Bilaspur (fot short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 12.01.2005, pas§ed in Ciaim Case No.41/2003. 2) i As against the compensation of Rs.18,10,000/— claimed by i thé appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased , RaHheshyam Banjare by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act f0; his death in the motor accident on V . l 19.09.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,59,085l— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date a of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led b'efore it held that the claimant’s husband Radheshyam Banjare died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.09.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.O4-G/O491; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not .( establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,318/— per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.5,000/— which the *a\ l L @ claimant, widow of deceased Radheshyam Banjare was receiving ' as pension after his death, the loss of dependency was wogked out to Rs.4,318/— per month. By multiplying the monthly loss of dependency of Rs.4,318/— with 20 , the loss of salary of deceased for the remaining 20 months of his service was worked out to Rs.86,360/-. For the period after the retirement of the deceased, the loss of dependency was worked out at Rs.34,545/— per annum. u . By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.34,545l— with the multiplier of 5, the total loss of dependency was worked out to . Rs.1 ,72,725/—. By adding the above two sums of Rs.1 ,72,725/- and Rs.86,360/—, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.2,59,085/—. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,59,085/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Radheshyam Banjare in the motor accident. The Tribunal . further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,59,085/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel fer the appellant .z submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium to the widow; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,59,085/— only. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India lnsurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award \ l l \\., . and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,59,085/- awarded by the ‘Tribunal is‘julstgand propéfcompensation in the facts and € circumstances of the present case. 8) 1 In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shouid bejust and‘proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meageramount of compensation, nor a a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,59,085/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and'proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant’s husband deceased Radheshyam Banjare was working as Head Master in a Government School. According to his salary certincate, Ex.P/4, his gross-salary for the month of September, 2003 was Rs.10,438/—. The Tribunal certainly has fallen into error in considering his net-salary of Rs.9,318/— for the assessment of the compensation in the case. 11) We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.10,438/- ‘for a period of two years and thereafter, on the basis of his pension amount of Rs.5,000/— per month for further period of three years as the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of 5 forthe age group between 60—65 years. 12) The annual salary of the deceased on the basis of his monthly salary of Rs.10,438/- comes to Rs.1,25,256/—. By dedUcting 1/3rd of Rs.1,25,256/— towards the personal expenses of the? deceased, the claimant’s dependency is assessed at Rs.83,504/—. By multiplying the above figure of Rs.83,504/— with multiplier of 2 (asthe deceased was having remaining service of two years only), the loss of dependency during the service tenure of the deceased comes to Rs.1 ,67,008/-‘ 13) “After retirement of thé deceased, he would have received pension of 50% of his salary of Rs.10,438/—, which would come to Rs.5,219/—, which .for the sake of convenience is rounded off to Rs.5,000/— per month and Rs.60,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.60,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant’s dependency comes to Rs.40,000/- per annum. By multiplying the above figure of Rs.40,000/— with the multiplier of 3, the loss of dependency after retirement of the deceased comes to Rs.1 ,20,000/-. 14) By adding the above two sums of Rs.1,67,008/- and Rs.1,20,000/—, the total compensation on accounts of loss of dependency during the service tenure and after retirement of the deceased comes to Rs.2,87,008/-. 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 claimant, thus, becomes 'e‘ntitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,02,008/— as compensation for the death of her husband Radheshyam Banjare in the motor accident. @ 135) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to a1void any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the ciaimant 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. f6) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the fact that the sole claimant in the appeal is an old lady aged about 50-55 years, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,923/— at Rs.8,077/—. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,59,085/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,02,008/— with "further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,077/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,923/—. 18) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance 90mpany Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing “the total sum of Rs.51,000/- (Rs.42,923/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,077/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,923/-) before the concerning Claims‘T‘ribunal. 19) No order as to costs. /%5:nha r Sdl- w ' w 1 v i sun“ Kuma‘ Judge G /’ H ”M ./ 1/ ;/(, Chief Justice \ /