Nand Kumar aged about 35 years S/o Uday Narayan Divedi R/o Jhopadapara Sirgitti Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur Owner of the Jeep & Driver Jeep No. M.P. 26-E 7018 5. United India Insurance Company, Bilaspur C.G. Misc. Appeai under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appeiiants. None for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Shri SudhirAgrawal and Shri P Dutta counsel for respondent No 3 Shri H B Agrawai Senior counsel With Smt Meera Jalswai counsel for respondent No5 (wrongly mentioned as resondent~No.6). ORDER (18th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 01.1 1.2004, passed in Claim Case No.88/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,14,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of} deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari, by filing a claim petition under. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.08.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,22,000/— as compensation‘along with interest @ 9% per p i p annum from the ate of filing of the claim petition till the date of d .. actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence Ied before it heid that deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.08.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.M.P.27—B/1592; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date 4 of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 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.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 1/5‘“ of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000l— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,000I-. ‘By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,22,000/—- as compensation to the Peg-*1 @ claimants for the death of deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed paymeht of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiontiil the date of actuai payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Iearned counsel for the appeilants 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 a awarding low compensation of Rs.2,22,000/— only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri H.B. Agrawal, Iearned Senior counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Jeep in which the deceased was travelling also supported the award. 9) 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 compensation in the facts and circumstahces of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. _//— 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari used to earn Rs.6,000/— per month as helper/ driver in the Jeep, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal 'to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. , Even the employer of the deceased was not examined by thew claimants before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. - 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 1999 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. ' 13) Considering that deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari, onthe date of the accident, was aged about 32—33 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/—. per day in, the year 1999 even by working as an unskilled labour. We,‘ therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,090/- per month and Rs.24,000/-’ per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3“ of Rs.24,000/— towards the ' personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. 2/w/l l l \ is The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and his widow, in our opinion, is appropriate. 15) 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/—. The claimants are 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 claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71 ,OOOI- as compensation fOr the death of deceased Surendra Kumar @ Raju Tiwari in the motor accident. 17) 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 itself. 18) 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 n the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.49,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. .19) _For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by'the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rst.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is g o ' $§m‘ enhanced to Rs.2,71 ,000/— with further quantified am0unt of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.49,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.55,000/— (Rs.49,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.49,000/-) before 7 (V the concerning Claims Tribunal. . 21) No order as to costs. Sd/— >\\"\~ ~r i ' Sunil Kumar Sinks; ‘ , Judge Sd/_ ‘7 I: W , p subbu CHIEF JUSTICE