HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Ct No. 601 of2007 Appellants Applicants 1. Dil Bai w/o late Shri Sundar Ram Satnami aged about 27 years, R/o village Divanpur Tahsil & P.S. Patthalgaon, district Jashpur C.G. 2. Gopal S/o late Shri Sundar Ram Satnami, aged about 15 years, 3. Sumitra Bai d/o late Shri Sundar Ram Satnami aged about 6 years. 4. Savita Bai d/o late Shri Sundar Ram Satnami, aged about 3 years. 5. Rajaram s/o late Shri Sundar Ram Satnami aged about 3 months. Appellant No. 2 to 5 is represented through their mother, Dil Bai w/o late Shri Suhdar Ram Satnami aged about 27 years, R/o village Divanpur, Tahsil & P.S. Patthalgaon, district Jashpur C.G. Resoondents Non-applicants VERSUS Smt. Indira Singh w/o Prabhat Kumar Singh, R/o. Tattbandh Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Owner of vehicle bearing NO.C.G.04/Z/2168) Amit Kumar Singh, s/o Satyadev Singh, R/o Village Charho, P.S. Charho, district Hajaribs®, (Jharkhand) (Driver of vehicle bearing NO.C.G.04/Z/2168) l^. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jamshedpur di^rict Jamshedpur, (Jharkhand). 4. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal s/o Laln Prasad Jaiswal R/o villag & Post Andhar, Tahsil Malkhrouda, district Janjgir Champa C.G. (Owner of vehicle bearing No.C.G.12^/2170) 5. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Office of T.T. Nagar Korba, C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHSCLES ACT. 1888. Present: Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for the appellarrts. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER (05th April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by .Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This (s daimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.04.2007, passed in Claim Case No.39/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,04,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Sundar Ram Ssrtnami by filing a claim petition under Section 166,of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death m the motor acddent on 22.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of } :--:H v^*:&^^- Yl /i Rs.97,000/- as compensation to the claimants atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ffling 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 Sundar Ram Satnami died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.10.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ofyending vehtete Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04/J-2168; as the above offending vehtote Truck 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 compensatjon 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 deductsng 1/3rd of Rs.15.000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Glaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Though the Tribunal selected the multiplier of 18, there appears to be some calculatlon mistake as the amount arrived at by the '\ ••., Tribunalis Rs.90,000/-, which ought to have been Rs.1,80,000/- 4^W,. 8 / ^y By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.97,000/- as compensatjon to the claimants for the death of deceased Sundar Ram Sa*nami in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the olaim petition till the date of actual payment.. 6) Smt Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred jn 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.97,000/- only. 7) Shri Abhisek Sinha, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the.other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the insurer of the Marshall Jeep in whtoh the deceased was travelling also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compqnsation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunate should be just and.proper compensation in the faets 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.97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present csse. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceas^d Sundar Ram Satnami used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was ted before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation ofthe deceased and his incometo that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not flnd any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidertce about the income ofthe deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Sundar Ram Satnami was aged about 35-36 years on the date of the acddent, in our opirton, he could.have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2005 even by workjng as an unskilled labour. 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 personai expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. ^T^ 15) Considering the age of the d^eased. his wictow, and children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multiplying the.annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multjplier 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.5,000/-for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The dalmants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sundar Ram Satnami in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parti^ before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are ent'rtled to receive interest on the enhanced.amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled in this appeal itself. 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in dlsposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the tnsurance 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 ofRs.1,58,000/-at Rs.17,000/-. 19) For the, foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the • \ , appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is \ padma allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.97,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.17.000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.1,58,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.17,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge •\