l'! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. ABBea^o.404of2W6 1. Smt. Renu Chakravarti, age 23 yrs, w/o. Pradip Chakravarti, occupation House Wife. 2. Pankaj Chakravarti, age 4 yrs, minor son of Pradip Chakravarti. 3. Ku. Raoshni Chakravarti, age 6 month, minor ; D/o Pradip Chakravarti. 4. Smt. Dipali Chakravarti, age 52 yrs. w/o. Harilal Chakravarti. On behalf of minor appellants no. 2 and 3 their next friend, mother Smt. Renu Chakravarti, appellant No.1. All R/o Mana Colony, P.S. Mana Camp, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Resppnd^nte 1. Bhojraj @ Bhuru, occupation driver of Vehicle Swaraj Majda, R/o Banstal, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. 2. Amarlal Mulchand Satnami, occupation owner of Vehicle Swaraj Majda, R/o. Banstal Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office No.2, Bajrang Market, through Div. Manager, Div. Office, Katcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. .^^•:i-~i..."s.- & , ' '^ ~:--~.i:3 a ?tea«i'.-ij'' -..^.sS^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel on behalf, of Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (28InlVlarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow, minor childre'n and mother of deceased Pradip Chakravarti are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 13 Additiorial Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.86/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.93,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Pradip Chakravarti, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,89,5007- as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 that deceased Pradip Chakravarti died on account i;^^, >~<^ of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driverofthe offending vehicle Swaraj Majda bearing registration No.M.H.35/1871; as the above offending vehicle Swaraj Majda on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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" claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed anyappeal 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.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section-163A of the. Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Pradip Chakravarti in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,89,500/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in. not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.1,89,500/- only. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Swaraj Majda, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,89,5007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensationin the facts and circumstances of the 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.1,89,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Pradip Chakravarti used to earn Rs.13,000/- per month by working in Agrawal Communication as Sales and Service Operator; by •;^;;.";3?t;:^^?SS4EEBSStKISiS?y'i-i running his own shop Pankaj Electronics; by running a P.C.O. S.T.D. Booth, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.13,000/- per month. Neither the proprietor of the Agrawal Communication was examined before the Tribunal nor any license/ registration was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any shop at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault" in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence aboutthe income ofthe deceased.' 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 i^ certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Pradip Chakravarti, on the date of the accident, was aged about 25 years, we are of the opinion, that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2004 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. <z 14) Considering the age of the deceased; his widow; their children; and mother, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensationworks out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for !oss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of. consortium to the widow. The daimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/- as cpmpensation for the death of deceased Pradip Chakravarti in the rhotor accident. 16) 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 claimants are 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 itsetf. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, induding the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appealand 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.97,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,89,500/- awarded by ^• ^?- %^: -^-~ •^-- subbu the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.97,500/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.97,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatjon of Rs.97,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. T Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Cuandrakar Judge