^;A: ,<^T^\ B ^, &) •^. "% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 806 of 2011 Appellants Claimants KWWIBNNINB^ ^_-.. Respondent/ Insurer Respondent/ owner Respondent/ Driver 1 Surendar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh, aged about 62 years, 2 Satvindar Singh, w/o Surendar Singh, aged about 51 years. 3 Pooja Vasule, w/o late Shri Bhupendra Singh, aged about 22 years. 4 Gagandeep Singh, s/o late Shri Bhupendra Singh, aged about 6 months. Through natuj-al guardian mother Pooja Vasule, w/o late Shri Bhupendra Singh, aged about 22 years. All the appellants are residents Raigarh Road, Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, district Raigarh C.G. VERSUS 1 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570 Rectifier House, Naughan Cross road, Vadala, West Mumbai 400 031 (India) Insurance Policy No.1610172334337803 2 M/s Payal Road Lines, proprietor Shri C.R. Bhat, r/o Jamkammbadiya, Jamnagar, Gujarat. Vehicle Registration No.GJ-10-W- 5744 trailer 3 Manek Karshan Bhai Aasparba, r/o village Vasal, Tahsil Dwarka, Jamnagar PIN 361 335, through M/s Payal Road Lines, proprietor Shri C.R. Bhat, r/o Jamkammbadiya, Jamnagar, Gujarat. ^ Misc. Appeal (C) No.806/2011 Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ^- ^ Present: Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (29th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. by the Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.20/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 1,16,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Bhupendra Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.08.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,53,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of actual payment. 3) Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, 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 only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,53,000/- only. Misc. Appeal (C) No.806/2011 ^: 4) 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. 5) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bhupendra Singh used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month from his Lathe Machine, 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.15,000/- per month. The claimants did not produce before the Tribunal any license or registration of the Lathe Machine and/or any income-tax return of the deceased showing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs. 1,80,0007- per annum. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 8) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that deceased Bhupendra Singh was shown to be 30 years of age in his postmortem report ':-^. •^^ Misc. Appeal (C) No.806/2011 and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Cprporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the age group between26-30 years. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.45,000/- under other heads. 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 summariiv- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu