HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants "? Kw Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 467 of 2009 1. Smt. Premlata Nayak aged 40 years w/o late Sudhir Nayak 2. Shashank Nayak aged 18 years s/o late Sudhir Nayak 3. Ku. Shradhha Nayak aged 13 years s/o late Sudhir Nayak (All above resident of 1,2,3 Janta Colony, Bakshi Nagar, Lakholi District Rajnandgaon C.G. (Appellant No.1 as Natural guardian for appellant No.3) 4. Hukum Chand Nayak aged 75 years 5. Sudha Nayak aged 70 years (Appellant No.4 and 5 r/o Station Road, behind residence of Itoria gee, Damoh Tehsil & district Damoh (M.P.) (They are respondents no.4 & 5 before claim Tribunal) VERSUS 1. Chechan Ray aged 28 years s/o Santlal Ray r/o Through M/s Puna Ranchi Roadways, Transport Nagar, Tatiband, Raipur Present address: Paltan Bazaar Dibrugarh (Assam) (Driver of offending Truck No.C.G.- 04-G-5099) 2. M/s PunaRanchi Transport Pvt. Ltd, Sector - 23, Plot No. 123, J.P. Transport Nagar, Nigdi, district Pune (Maharastra) (Owner of offending Truck No.C.G.- 04-G-5099) BF .f" ^^'%.. '% f€-.l1i 1 '^BSII', | K. ':^y/ MACNo. 467 of 2009 3. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company 24, White Road Chennai (Tamil Nadu) (Insurance Company of offending Truck NO.C.G.-04-G-5099) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ?th (26l"August,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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 15/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,72,769/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, children and parents of deceased Sudhir Nayak, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% 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 Sudhir Nayak died on account of the ^'•' ^ ^ MACNo. 467 of 2009 <...- h- injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.- 04/G.-5099; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United 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. 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 13 the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.48,000/- under other heads including Rs.6,000/- medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sudhir Nayak in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. MACNo. 467 of 2009 6) Shri Anurag Jha, 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; in selecting the lower multiplierof 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- 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.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sudhir Nayak used to earn more than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum as Accountant, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal ii'y^^- MACNo. 467 of 2009 in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Sudhir Nayak, on the date of the accident, was in the age group of 41-45, we are ofthe opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.2,000/- per month in the year 2004. 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. 14) As deceased Sudhir Nayak was in the age group of 41-45 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,0007- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,000/-. 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. By adding further sum of MACNo. 467 of 2009 o kWNNll Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sudhir Nayak in the motor 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 itself. 17) 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 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.67,000/- at Rs.8,000/-. 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.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,45,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.67,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum 1 MACNo. 467 of 2009 subbu of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.67,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.67,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. __ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge