v^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants (Claimants) Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 889 of 2011 1. Smt Motim Bai Sahu, Wd/o Late Amrit @ Amrish Sahu, aged about 40 years 2. Mukesh, s/o Late Amrit @ Amrish Sahu, aged about 14 years 3. Ku Yogeshwari, d/o Late Amrit @ Amrish Sahu, aged about 12 years 4. Smt Ghasnin Bai, Wd/o Late Dukalu Sahu, aged about 60 years Appellants No.2 to 3 being minors represented by their natural guardian & mother appellant No.1 Smt Motim Bai Sahu, Wd/o Late Amrit @ Amrish Sahu All r/o Present address C/o House of Baldev Sahu, near Raghuwar Dayal Verma, Kiran Shop, Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, Thana Khamtarai, District Raipur (CG) Permanent Address : Village - Mura, Post Darba, Thana Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Mohan Mahaling, S/o Nehru Mahilang, R/o Chhote Urla, Thana Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) (Driver of Vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-OSB/0198) Nathu Ram Koliyara, s/o Anjori Ram, R/o Village - Korar, Thana Korar, District Kanker (CG) ^^sft;' V"!^" MACNo.889of 2011 ^ (Owner of Vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-OSB/0198) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional No.2, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (CG) (Insurer of Vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-OSB/0198) 4. Gagan Sahu, s/o Kishor Sahu, r/o Vilage - Blenga (Bastar) District Bastar (CG) Pin Code 494223 (Possessors of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-08 B/0198) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri-Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. ORDER ^th (19InAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 2) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2011, passed in Claim Case No.25/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Amrit @ Amrish Sahu by filing a claim --y MACNo.889of 2011 <z-o petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,45,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of actual payment. 4) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 14; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,45,500/-only. 5) 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,45,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Amrit @ Amrish Sahu used to earn Rs.250/- per day as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.7,500/- per month. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the rainy season the construction activities are not in full MACNo.889of 2011 93 swing and as such, the Mason and Labour may not get work every day throughout the year. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 9) The multiplier of 14 selected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Amrit @ Amrish Sahu was aged about 41 years on the date of the accident and the recent 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 prescribes the multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^\)^ ^ ^