@ HIGH COURT OF OHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HONIBLE SHRI HAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Appellants Claimants Misc Appeal No. 998 of 2004 1 Smt Geeta Patel, aged 39 years, widow of Sushil Kumar Patel 2 Reshma Patel; aged about 9 years, daughter 0f Late Sushil Kumar (Minor) 3 Rajesh Patel, aged about 7 yeats. son of late Sushil Kumar Patel (Minor) Minors No.2 and 3 through : Mother Smt Geeta Patel, aged .39 years, widow of Sushil Kumar Patel All residents of village Gejamuda, PS Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Ajay Kumar Singh, 170 Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and Distt Korba (CG) 2 Bheem Singh, son of Shri S Singh, presently resident of : C/o Ajay Kumar Singh, 170 Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and DistLKorba (CG) ’ The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Raigarh ‘ 4 Smt Daljeet Tuteja, wife of Taranjeet Tuteja, aged about 4D years Téran Jeet Singh, son or Kehrsingh, aged about 45 years Sl No.4 and 5 are resident of Nayaganj, Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Resgondents Tahsil and Distt Raigarh (CG) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajee‘v Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor'Acoident Ciaime Tribunal, Raigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.06.2004, passed in Claim Case No.06/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of of deceased Sushi! Kumar Patel by tiling a c‘laim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000l- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the 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 Sushil Kumar Patel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31 05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver s @ of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registrafion No.0RO- 6A/7976; as the above offending vehicle Dumper 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 claimants. 4) As the respondents have not med 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.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. By deducting \ 4/3” of Rs.27,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,0001s. By awarding further sum of Rs.1'2,000l- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rst3,00,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sushil Kumar Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of“, Rs.3,00,0DO/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per s i L 4 @ annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,00,000i- only. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental lnsurance Company Limited. the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any egular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/— awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. ‘ 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts] Tribunals should be it and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the se. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor ~ us ca a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,00,0001- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sushil Kumar Patel used to earn Rs.200!~ per day by selling milk in addition to his agricultural‘income, the evidence led by the claimants about the > income of the deceased is not of clinching nature. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the incomeof the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,250/— per month and Rs.27,000l— per annUm. r @ 11) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 113'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering'that deceased Sushil Kumar Patel was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident. 13) 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 or the multiplier‘selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15)werseg No order as to costs. f:\ a v '. Sd/~,"- ‘Sd/_ ”'M‘ i :RN. Chandr'akar /_._‘ Chief Justice ’