?:' te. ^;1-1:"^°^. ^" ^ 1. Smt. Saroj Bai w/o Shivkumar ags 35 years. 2. Narad s/o ' late Shivkumar aged 4 years. 3. Narayan Kumar s/o late Shivkumar aged 2 years. 4. Parmeswar s/o late Shivkumar aaed Si. No. 2 to 4 through their mother Smt. Saroj Bai, all resident Shantinagar, Thana Mohannagar, Durg, Distrlct Tahsi! Durg C.G. i s/o iate Ranjeet -Mohara, District Singh Mandavi, Sakin-Mohara Thana Rajnandgaon. (Truck Driver Truck No. 26C/1963) 2. Brajkishore Gupta R/o Old Ganj, Kaiiashnagar, Rajnandgaon C.G. 3. Divisional Manaaer, National insurance Company, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela Bhiiai. .^<fc >0, Present: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel forthe appellants. .^.i^SSE^^ ,''yy'''^ff::3::::^r-€s%:-. ^f •"'•' ^i '^ w^" 1 '"~;?fiA JJ k ''t J ^F«,^s*^" Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Dashrath Gupta, iearned counsel for respondent No.3. >th ^..- The foilowing order of the Court was passed This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth' Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 31.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No.336/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Shiv Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.10.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as of 3) ion aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ling of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Shiv Kumar died on acc&unt of the injuries sustained by him in the m'otor accident on 07.10.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Truck bearing registration No.M.P.24C/1963; as the above offendina vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Nationat Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance ComDanv couid not establish anv breach of the policy Sir ^k ti i/D 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.15,0007- 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 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 muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- vrfith the multipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sh.iv Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further direc-ted payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,77,0001- @ 6% per annum from the date of Tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual paym6nt. 3) Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appeliants 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.15,0007- per annum only; and in awardina low comDensation of Rs.1,77.000/- onlv. 1 Vk'Si.i•fs. 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 as the claimants coutd not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Brajkishore Gupta, owner of the offending vehtele Truck, also supported the award. 9) !n 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. 10) Now we sh.ali examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) True,the claimants pleaded that deceased Shiv Kiimar used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Labour/Hamal, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature- We, therefore, .dp not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. y ^^f%, !! &,. '¥t lA.ilJ o 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2001 is certainly on the lowsr side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considerina that deceased Shiv Kumar was aaed about 35 years on the date ofthe accident, we are ofthe opinion that he couid have easily earned Rs.65-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled !abour. 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. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/-.towards the personat expensesof the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multiptier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multipiying the annu.at dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15the compensation works out to Rs.2,'W),000/-. The f 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.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death deceased Shiv Kumar in the motor accident. 17) Learned counset for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibte dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced ^ ^-r% --i-t.;^,^,;^' amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appea! itself. 18) Considering a'l the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal ofthe clalm 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 altowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.78,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the National insurance Company Limited is jranted 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 concernina Claims Tribunal. y±) Mn-order_asJoi.costs. •subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge