:-!- <D ^a o ::e:,. AM 2:3 t :10^' •.•.-.^' s^^s :^.^:'.: •^•te i<D;! w ^r' ;Ei: ?ag!:i "QS 1M;:. 3<n?: ?cn;; i<PS 'iia.: iii '^SK ^ ro 's:; @B '3S '-a.. (R" ^3s 'z3 ^E ^3I"f3' •:3.^'2. Iti ig: UM ]^Ss aEagsg 'Si: .3s: ^{OS .VI ;'".^- ?IS>5 i g!^ mK 30i ^61®181 lii 'iS S^IBK •.^SSSMi.. o fe ;s -ffi ;(Km ;(£!;; 1 iSK i®l 'EBiS'B' !tU- :s ;EK ISi a» ^SIt. 3n>» :sy, ^ia.; g(E" i3S ^ :a 's^ ^ iKa;' :K ^re :;s"! -!"?. :3fy ;@g tiw ;cai: 33"i! ;ni| r(n'; ; OOs iflls lis "^WS CQ^! IS- |Be- IS,' IS? lai? IW5 |3'£ 1§.: 1®5 1'11?; IU»1 10 t%: I-*;. I'"!" lw! w IS IQt; K < <BB ^ f>S: <0i Wl;w 'ci;.; cCg Cd i;s^ :§iliE ^ KffiKS" IEI 'loltoj '.":i::^:d3T": -aii i 'B; ®i :<K !MSi ?a?8 a^ iBlii? »(B; s» iflT i*a; ^•S ^§^ii 'Ui^-wSM'S i^'3SX ^:^^^ 'sSSs :%SSI :~~rSSmi r:?iiig :39SS^^ iWSUS SSiSIS i|@gaK|- asaisg SK =aj^sw ieo. jtf ;®sga^ f "^ :il ^ll :^i vs>s % ;E;: ;ifli! . !B; xni:; s!iu"B ksffii lO".Ki ^l w^ ^sSl' '<B<i ;tff sWS. ~s^w m :13 ^E: W Ml 'SsS&' 'Bi^a SBi iiil ^ i: w ^: ec ffi. il» B)3 i1 w :;tU' ;3T 'IW; w iffli9: <ES ai :St. %i aa -1% sag ?<I)??~ 8i ^Ki ^rt'® ;%Si iSil cns- & ffl.! ies gi•ilsi iWs 'B'SSh iSm'! im^ ^i iB .iiil •i%ii .;1.:'HO? :s?; 'EL. @ s". a>f s^ Ou' \ 'i !<1, ^ o: Os; ®& a>& i0| z; SEI C Mr .|£':: N>i o,,e' 6s ffl? 3S& SB M i®^' o so^ ;©s@1 :;zlz? 3(B:'cni ws~ •r . "Kttol^ ax agi a Sil iZBH; IBSI IBK 85 'M Bit ^s ^ ® sm s F M- Mw ^ E' f^® E£. m |C"». |2S IB l91*i w. l^ M iso' IS i»; 9 (B B;;'';;:''.::.l.:t//;:';¥.'/ •••1 <?;i':.'-. ^•:..::;1:11':';;-:": ;.:1: (ft;:-1'..}... -^:,1..,. ;;.;'.:'.. FI~~?:"'''^,"':,'1":"1';' :-/ -^ o?^;. :-;.;:.•'.' ::.:,^^ 3, •• ,:, , , ' : •.' •- o-:""1' :-~' 'r ••. '., '-:::'..::--':-'.:':::^:'.:.;' .:.. ^l:.-':."':-;'--,:':::^;.r -«Ba:~ai<! ^ f a... i s This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.111/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Koduram Chandrakar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 03.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing 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 Koduram Chandrakar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.05.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.-04/E-0676; as the above offending vehicle Minibus 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 compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. •\ n\ff ^ 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 claimant's dependenCy was assessed at Rs. 10.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Koduram Chandrakar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Raghavendra Pradhan and Ms. Shashi Bareth, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of-the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,22.000/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimant could /y\ //"~'*' ^ S S. ^-ni 1 not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by her, the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Balram Singh and respondent No.2 Smt. Saroj Tiwari, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Minibus, 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.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) True, the claimant pleaded that her husband Koduram Chandrakar used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by running a Kirana Shop, no cogentand reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any shop at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the. claimant's 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 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Koduram Chandrakar was aged about 53 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2006. 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. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Koduram Chandrakar was aged about 53 years, in our opinion, is appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51-55 years. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,76,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for (oss of consortium to the widow. The claimant, thus, becomes d. Ssss entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband Koduram Chandrakar 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 claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the 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.69,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ ctaimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,91,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of cpmpensation of Rs.69,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.69,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest ^ui.„—._„. {--' S ''SashsS^ 'i 'fssaa^ s I ~ ~% J :\^y '"'•^Sssssss^'"' subbu on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.69,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/-- R-N. Chandrakar Judge