%}¢1RJ x331 §¢SqQéM$ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & I HON’BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1300 of 2005 AppelIantsV 1 Smt. Nillo, W/o Late Bhutnath, Aged Claimants I about 23 years 2 Mosuram, S/o Late Boda, Caste-Muriya, Aged about 45“years 3 Smt. Soni, W/o Mosuram, Aged about 40 years AII are residents of village Belar, Patelpara, Tehsil Jagdalpur, Dist-Baster (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Sadhuram (Driver) S/o Udayrma Tendon, Aged about 43 years, R/o Telibandha, Dist — Raipur (C.G.) 2 Smt. Seema ader, (Owner) W/o Anil Lader, Aged about 34 years, R/o - Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Old Quarter No.3, Dist.— Raipur (C.G.) 3 Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jagdalpur, Dist- Baster (C.G.) Appeal UIS 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Present : Shri'H.S. Ahluwalia, (counsel for the appellants. 'Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, Counsel for respondent No. 3. ORDER (05m May, 2011) \ L The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Bhootnath are theappellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 10.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.252/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Bhootnath, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, for his death on 02.07.2004 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,83,640/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date l’ff of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led 3 _ x before it held that deceased Bhootnath died on 02.07.2004 on i. I account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent § driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Toyato Qualis ‘bearing registration No.CG-04D/0007; as-the above offending vehicle Toyato Qualis on the date of the accident was insured with.the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establishlany breach of the poliCy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the 0 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.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/— per nannum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.18,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at ‘ Rs.12.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 12‘ the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.39,640/— under other permissible heads, medical expenses, conveyance and transportation of the body, the Tribunal awarded > a total sum of Rs.1 ,83,640/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Bhootnath in the motor accident. The I Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,83,640/— @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, 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.1,500/— per month and Rs:18,000/— per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,83,640/— only. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyato Quatis, on the other ii a 3*‘k’‘ hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,83,640/— 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/Tribunais 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.1,83,640/— 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 Bhootnath used > to earn‘Rs.4,500/- per month as Marbel Cutter working with some Arora contractor, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.4,500/— per month. For the reasons best known to the claimant, said Arora contractor was not examined before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not nnd any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/—'per’month and Rs.18,000/— per annum in the ye_ar 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Bhootnath was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident, we are of th‘e opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70—75/—, per day in the year 2004 even by working as an unskilled labour. 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 1/3“ of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. ‘ 14) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and parents, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 161) ‘ By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000I- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000l- for loss of estate. By adding further sum of Rs.6,640l— awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, conveyance and transportation of the body, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,61,640/— as compensation for the death of deceased Bhoothnath 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 co‘mpensation, the 6 G9 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 on the enhanced amount of compensation ‘of Rs.78,000/— at Rs.7,000/—. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,83,640/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,61 ,640/— with further quantihed amountof interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.78,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.85,000/— (Rs.78,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of’compensation of Rs.78,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 3; ¢g \ \ 21)‘ No order as to costs. \ “T sw- R.L. Jhanwar Sdl- r ‘ / .\\\\ ‘ Judge ‘ Chief Justicei subbu ‘ . l