»?iisct8si^ /^^ ~% 'I ^WSS3!?r. ' %^-;'K?"'^'lt ^ 3 '<®p2.^ H 6 ^^/. P.^-^SL^: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants !<;_ Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Aopeal (0 No. 814 of2009. 1. Smt. Urmila Bai Dhruv (Netam), W/o Late Sukhdeo Dhruv (Netam),aged about 29 years. 2. Ku. Bhagwati Dhruv, D/o Late Sukhdeo Dhruv, aged about 15 years. 3. Ku. Manju Dhruv, D/o Late Sukhdeo Dhruv, aged about 13 years. 4. Krishna Kumar Dhruv, S/o Late Sukhdeo Dhruv, aged about 11 years. Appetlant No.2 to 4 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appellant No.1 Smt. Urmila Bai Dhruv). All R/o Near Chouhan Aata Chakki, Changora Bhata, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1 Duman Sahu, S/o Shobharam Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Rakhi Police Station Kurud, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.). (Driver of vehicle Metador bearing registratiqn No.CG-05B/8454) 2 Shri Gopal Dhruv, S/o Shriram Dhruv, R/o Sarojini Chowk, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (owner of vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-05B/8454) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (Wrongly mentioned as Pvt. Ltd.) through Branch Manager, ^. ^l.l: ;.__......-..^fe c Branch Office, Madina Building, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer of vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-05B/8454) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (12th July, 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 11 Additional Motor Acciden.t Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.09.2009, passed in Claim Case No.29/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Sukhdeo Dhruv, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.3,89,400/- 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 deceased Sukhdeo Dhruv died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent —.—-^^ •"? driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-05 B/8454; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date 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.100/- per day and Rs.2,600/- per month assuming that he was getting work only for 26 days in a month; and Rs.31,200/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.31,200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,800/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,74,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,89,400/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhdeo Dhruv in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,89,400/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly ——..l;K income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/- per month after having assessed his daily income at Rs.100/- per day; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,89,400/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,89,400/- 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.3,89,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) From para 9 of the impugned award, we gather that the Tribunal assessed the daily income ofthe deceased at Rs.100/-. The Tribunal, surprisingly, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/- assuming that the deceased may not be working for four days in a month. We do not find any justification for assessment of the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of 26 days in a month. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, propose to recompute the --—•&_ compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12) Considering that deceased Sukhdeo Dhruv was aged about 30 years and his widow Smt Urmila Bai was shown to be 29 years of age in the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 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 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. 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.4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sukhdeo Dhruv in the motor accident. 14) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.3,400/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,600/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is <-^. subbu allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,89,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,400/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,600/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.37,000/- (Rs.33,600/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,400/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,600/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. -— Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnatb Chandrakar Judge .-—.:.-1_^....-_^.