^•F.P^. COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT DjyiSIONBENCH ^-' SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2006 AopeSIants Claimants 1. Smt Ambika Kashyap, aged about 40 years w/o iate Shri Gulab Nath Kashyap. 2. Gagan Kumar Kashyap, aged about 12 years, s/o !ate Shri Gulab Nath Kashyap. 3. Praveen Kumar Kashyap, aged about 11 years, s/o late Shri Gutab Nath Kashyap. Appeiiants No. 2 and 3 are represented by appellant No.1 Smt. Ambika Kashyap. Aii R/o Civil Line, near Water Tank, Gariaband, Thana & Post Gariaband, district Raipur C.G. ^^ Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Bittu @ Parmeshwar Dayal, aged about 34 years, S/o Bharat Lal Dubey, R/o behind Govemment Hospital, Gariaband, district Rajpur C.G. (Driver ofthe Mini Bus bearing Regd. NO.C.G.19-ZA0114) M/s Kanker Road Lines, through its Proprietor/ Owner Civil Line, Thana Civi! Line, Raipur, district Raipur, C.G. (Owner of the Mini Bus bearing Re9d.No.C.G.19-ZA0114) Nationa! insurance Company, through its Divisiona! Manager, G.E. Road, near Kutchery Chowk; Raipur C.G. ^^»» (Insurer of the Mini Bus bearing Regd.No.C.G.19-ZA0114) 173 OF THE MOTOR ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the appeliants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for respondent No.3. /; ith (1f"February,2011) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensatlQn awarded by the 13 Additiona! Motor Accldent CJaims Tribunai, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 8-12-2004, passed in Claim Case No.10/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate widow and minor sons of deceased Gulabnath Kashyap, by fiijng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.07.2003, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,17,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Guiabnath Kashyap died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on / / ^'^2^ 16.07.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent drivlng of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. C.G.19-ZA/0114; as the above offendJngvehide Minibus, on the date of the accident was insured with the Nationai insurance Company Lirnited and the insurance Company could not estabiish any breach of the pollcy conditions, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai have now attained flnaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second' Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deductlng 1/3rd Qf Rs. 15.000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/—perannum. By multlplylng the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multlplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,500/- under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1,17,500/-'as comi3ensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Guiabnath Kashyap in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,17,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the'date of actual payment. ^^^ 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribuna! has erred in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his Income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the jower multjplier of 11; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,17,500/-only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counse! for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribuna! js just and proper cornpensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) In a motor accident ciaim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunais shouid 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 shal! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Gulabnath Kashyap used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by running a shop at the Bus Stand, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. No license or registration certificate was produced before the Tribunal to estabiish that the deceased was runnlng any shop at aii. In thls state of evidence, we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Gulabnath Kashyap was aged about 48 years, we are df the opinion that he could have easiiy earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskiiled iabour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24.000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usua! 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the evidence of AW1 Smt. Ambika Kashyap about her age and the age of the deceased, we are of the opinlon that the multiplier of 1 1 seiected by the Tribunat is appropriate in the present case. 15) By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- wlth the multipiier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,76,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss ofestate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow. The claimants; thus, become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Gulabnath Kashyap in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatiQn may be quantified in this appeai itself. 17) Considering a!i the relevant aspects of the matter, inciuding the delay in disposal of the ciaim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appeliants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,91,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,500/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Nationai insurance Company Limited js granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.81,0007" (Rs.73,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified amount of interest i v-l:^^^."'-:-"-':: i. i.^./ '''^^^^' on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunaj. 20) No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge