HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AWF BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ HON BLE SHRI N K AGARWAL J Misc. Appeal (C) No. 181 of: 2006 Appellants 1. Ugeshwan Bal wd/o I late Ganesh Claimants Ram Sahu aged about 30 years 2. Rameshwari, aged 9 years d/o Iate Ganesh Ra‘m Sahu 3. Hemlal, ag'ed 7: years s/o Iate Ganesh Ram Sahu‘ 4. Lukeshwari, aged 3 years d/o Ganeshram Sahu :No.2 to 4 minors, through natural iguardian mother Ugeshwari Bai, ’all residents of Kanyadabari, P.S. Devri, Tahsil Devri, district Durg C.G. (;w VERSUS Respondents 1. Deepak Kumar, s/o Pyarelal aged about 30 years, occupation driver, resident of village Raveli, P.S. & Tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G. 2. Bhajan Singh Gil, son of Sardar Bhajan Singh Gil, resident of G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon C.G. through Gil Roadways, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon ,C.G. 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rajnandgaon C.G. Tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu counsel forthe appellants None for respondents No 1 and 2 though served Shri Dashrath Gupta counsei for respondent No 3 ‘ ORDER (10m May, 2011) , *d sax \ i WW }5r The ‘following order of the Cort was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ’ l This is claimants’ appeal for anhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor.Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vid/e award dated 19 07.2003 passed in Claim Case No.236/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs 10 1O OOOI- claimed by the appellants/ claimants unfortunate wrdow and minor children of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu, by ming a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, for his death in the motOr accident on 24.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sumrof Rs.1,67,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum ‘ from the date of tiling 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 Ganesh Ram Sahu dled on account of . ‘ the injuries sustained by him in the motor aCCIdent on 24 04 2002 ' the acmdent occurred due to rash and negligent driVing of the driver, of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.O8B-0191; as the above offendingvehicle Truck on thedate of the accident was ' insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the ;lnsurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay Compensation I ‘k ' to the claimants. : ~. a d 4) A. the‘ resondents have ng filed any appeal anst the e f d y h:e ow award, the abov indings recorde b t Tribu’nal have n tain inality. ated t 5) Th Tiunal asessed th inme o the decee at Rs.15,000/— per annu n the bais of he tiol inco prescribed in th econd Schede underSecion 163-A o t, e S ui ¥t f he Motor Vehicle Act. By deduin 3“ of .15,000/— towar the s ctg 1/ Rs ds xen ea he amats depe wa personal epses otthe dcesed, t clin’ endncy s asesed at s.0,00/— per annum. By ltiplying‘te’annual ss R10 muh dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,60,000/-. By'awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,67,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of t compensation of Rs.1,67,000l- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Rakesh Sahu, 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; and in awarding low ‘q/ ‘ ll compensation of Rs.1 ,67,000/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondentNoJ} the United lndia Insurance Company Limited. the insurer o‘fxth‘e offending vehicle Truck,‘on the otherhand, supported the award and ‘ s p t l gai 1 e rb s e co; f asd m o s i t nona me i I contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of J the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation. of Rs 1 67 OOOI- awarded by the ’Tribunal r is just and ‘proper compensatlon In the facts and cwcumstanceslof the present case 8)> - ln a motor aCCIdent clalm case what lls Important Is that the i compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tnbunals should be Just l l and proper compenSation in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. It should neither bera meager amountéof Compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of‘ Rs.1,67,000/— awarded ,by'r the Tribunali is just and proper compensation inthe facts and circumstancesiof the present case; 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu used to earn Rs.3,00_0/— per-month as labour and Rs.2,000/— per month from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income 'o’f the deceased to the above extent We therefore do not find any fault In the approach of the Tribunal In discarding the claimants eVIdence about the Income .‘ ' ‘ v of the deceased 1’1) Nevertheless the Income of the deceased assessed by the , Tribunal at Rs 15 000l- per annum In the year 2002 Is certainly on the lower side and requires reconSIderatIon r 12) ConSIderIng that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu on the date of the accident was aged about 35 years we are of the opinion that her ‘ r , could have eaSIly earned Rs.70—75/— per day,In the year 202‘even 9 L > by working as an unskilled Iabour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at ~ 1 Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per aninum. \13) By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs;.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clagmants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age of the deceased iand the claimants, we are of the opinion that muitiplier of 15*’would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000l—. The claimants are further awarded 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 of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu 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 inthis appeal itself. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, inclLi‘dirlg the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present ap‘pgeal‘ ‘and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is notlto be ‘blamed 1 r subbu , for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest ‘ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.88,000/— at Rs.7,000/—. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeaJ med 'by the appellants/'7 claimants for enhancement of the compenéation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,67,000/— awar:ded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.‘7,000/— on the enhanced amount Vof‘ Compensation Of Rs.88,000/—. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company> Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of \ Rs.95,000/— ‘ (Rs.88,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towardsquantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.88,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order asto costs. Sdl— Sd/- N.K.Agarwa1 Chief Justice l Judge . 1/(7 r , \_ / ,L ;‘i‘,, 7/““1 .