^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants ^.. Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 253 of 2010 1 Jhumuk Lal Kashyap s/o late Tijram Kashyap, aged about 55 years. 2. Smt. Garhan Bai, w/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Kashyap, aged about 50 years, Both are residents of village Dhiwara, tahsil Jaijaipur, distt. Janjgir-Champa, at present village Prasabhatha, Balco Nagar Korba, Ward No. 32, tahsil & distt. Korba C.G. VERSUS 1 Jagmohan @ Deepak, aged about 48 years, s/o Murlidhar Prasad, r/o Qtr. No.23, Sihartor, Vyahaya Hardi, P.S. Bilaigarh, distt. Raipur C.G. at present village Gharjara, post Sarsiwa, distt. Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicle) 2 Radheshyam Pradhan, aged about 40 years, s/o Murlidhar r/o village Gharjara, post Gatadih, P.S. Bilaigarh, distt. Raipur C.G. at present village Gharjhara, post Sarsiwa, distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner of vehicle) 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, T.P. Nagar, Korba, tahsil & distt. Korba C.G. (Insurer) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act ,^A~S^ ,.,:"""a-^ '%. ^..-y "":!<-•-.... ...:~'....^?-' MACNo.253of 2010 <L'^ Present: Shri Suresh Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (19InAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents ofdeceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.238/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,70,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of theMotor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 06.01.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.65,000/- 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 that the claimants' daughter Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.01.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.-04DA/2381, as the above offending vehicle Tractor on the date of the accident was insured with the /' s ^^\ y/ MACNo.253of 2010 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 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 2/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.5,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.5,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 15,0007- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Suresh Verma, 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 her income at Rs. 15,0007- per annum only; in -^.. ,,.;:~^<ix '''^ § 'fSpr;^. ;1 --;^sS^ ^ \,.wy MACNo.253of 2010 q>\ deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.65,000/- only. 7) Shri DashrathGupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor, on the other hand, contended that since deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap was aged about 15 years only, the compensation of Rs.65,000/- 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 compensation in 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.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants in the claim petition did not plead that their daughter deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap had any income from any source, in their evidence before the Tribunal it was projected that she was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from tuition. The Tribunal did not believe the claimants' evidence in that behalf and assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Sh' '•'l^^"^- ^ MAC No. 253 of 2010 11) As deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap was aged about 15 years on the date of the accident, it is difficult to believe that she could have earned any amount from tuition in the village. Nevertheless, it is a matter of common knowledge that in the villages, particularly in this part of the Country, even the boys and girls go for work and help their parents. In this background, the assessment of the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income by the Tribunal in the year 2007 at Rs. 15,0007- per annum, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are her parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus n/lohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 12,0007- per annum by deducting MACNo.253of 2010 cjp 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 14) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view o.f the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation for the death of their daughter deceased Ku. Preeti @ Sarojini Kashyap in the motor accident. 16) The claimants are further awarded Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,30,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/-. MACNo.253of 2010 l^ 18) Respondent No.,3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.65,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. --— subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge