@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.54 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1 2 3 Meena Bai, W/o Late Ramchandra Sahu, aged about 29 years ' Ku Rekha, d/o late Ramchandra Sahu, aged about 9 years Ku Hemlata @ Ramchandra Sahu, 7years Late D/o aged about Ku Rameshwari, D/o Late Ramchandra Sahu, aged about 2 years Appelalnt No.2 to 4 are minor through represented by their natural guardian appellant No.1 Meerabai, w/o Ramchandra Sahu All are r/o Village Silauti Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (CG) Respondents VERSUS Parsadi Ram S/o Kaleshar aged about 45 years, R/o Ramnagar, Shamshan Ghat, Supela Nala, PS Supela (Bhilai) Distt Durg (CG) (Driver of the alleged vehicle) SD Giri, S/o Triveni Giri aged about 63 years, R/o GWS 285, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) (Owner of the alleged vehicle) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bhjlai, Distt Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Company of the alleged vehicle) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Ms M Asha, counsel for the appellants. Shri SP Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Shri Dasarath Gupta and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (19th April, 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.628/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and daughters of deceased Ramchandra Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's faiture to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing ofthe award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ramchandra Sahu died on account "^w^ '^s^^^ of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.09.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.07/ZC-3605; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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.15,000/- 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 multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramchandra Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of .7' ' '^ y^ ] @ compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 6) Ms. M. Asha, 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 compensation of Rs.1,90,0007- only. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta and Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle T.ruck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compehsation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, also supported the award. 9) 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (^ 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramchandra Sahu used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month from his kirana shop, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish his income to that extent. In fact, no documentary material was placed before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any shop at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Ramchandra Sahu was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2004 even by working as ah unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the incomeof 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 personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Ramchandra Sahu was aged about 30 years, and his widow claimant No.1 Meena Bai was aged about 29 years, in our opinion, is appropriate. ,.^^c: 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. 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.2,87,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ramchandra Sahu 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 receiveinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amoynt 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.97,000/- at Rs.13,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed bythe appellants/ clairhants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in pa,rt. The compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified ^ ^'^ ^, -'-^ ••sy/ amount of interest of Rs.13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.97,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards quantified ,amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma