@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRi R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1247 of 2005 Aooellants Claimants Smt Kusum Mishra, W/o Late Shri Virendra Mishra, aged years about 32 Atut Mishra, S/o Late Shri Virendra Mishra, aged about 10 years Aman Mishra, S/o Late Shri Virendra Mishra, aged about 6 years Appellant No.2 and 3 through natural guardian and mother appellant No.1 Smt Kusum Mishra, w/o Late Shri Virendra Kumar h4ishra, occupation Housework, R/o Company Bazar, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, C.G Versus Respondents Owner Driver Insurance 4. South Eastern Coal fifed Limited, Through —Deputy General Manager, Kumda Kalari, SECL, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt Surguja, CG Vijay Kumar, S/o Akshat Nahak, aged about 42 years, Qccupation Driver SECL Kumda, R/o Kumda Kalari,Qut No,207, Kumda, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt Surguja, CG Lagan Singh, S/o Ramprasad, Ageci about 45 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Tengni, PS & Post Patna Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) Oriental insurance Company, Through Branch Manager, near Ambedkar Chouk Nagar, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) v /s ;s?y ^ 4 Prakash Chandra Tiwai, S/o Satish Chandra Tiwari, aged about 34 years cast Brahmin, R/o Kedarpur, Nagar, Ambikapur Distt Surguja CG IVIiscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counset for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4though served. ORDER (04th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5 Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.2/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.77,74,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor sons of deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 18.09.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,26,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. -'.!>. 3) The Tribunalon a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor aceident on 18.09.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.CG-15 ZA/1535; as the above offending vehicle bus 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 the compensation 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.67,214/- per annum. By deducting 1/3fd of 67,2147- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.44,810/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.44,810/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,16,960/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was assessed at Rs.7,25,960/-, which was rounded off to Rs.7,26,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.7,26,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount .-&.. \ of compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- 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 bus on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.7,26,000/- to the claimants. 8) Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learnedcounsel forrespondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle bus and Shri Vikram Dixit, tearned counsel for respondent No.2 the driver of the offending vehicle bus 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 ofthe case. tt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, hor a bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra used to earn as Life Insurance Corporation Agent; Sub-Contractor; and Pandit, the evidence led by the claimants before the Tribunal was not of clinching nature. In fact, the r5</ certificate (Ex.PS) issued bythe Life Insurance Corporation Limited cleariy indicates that LIC Agency was in the name of Smt Kusum Mishra, who is claimant No.1 and widow of deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra. Similarly, in the other statements produced by the ciaimants before the Tribunal which were issued by the Life Insurance Corporation Limited giving the details of the commission given in the above agency also reveal that the commission was paid to Smt Kusum Mishra and not to deceased Virendra Kumar Mishra. Thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal has falien into an apparent error in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the above certificates issued by the Life Insurance Corporation Limited. 12) Be that as it may, as the respondents have not filed any appeal challenging the award we leave the aboveissue here only. 13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and the above mentioned broad features ofthe case, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 14) As we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appeltants7claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. R.L. JhanM<iar Judge sd/- Chief Justice .I—-tfl= padma