_^ •(F . ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0. No. 458 of2008 Appellants Claimants ^i 1. Smt. Shail Bai, w/o late Keshav Prasad, aged about 35 years. 2. Bed Prakash, s/o late Keshav Prasad, aged about 18 years. 3. Durgesh Prasad, s/o late Keshav Prasad, aged about 16 years. 4. Duli Chand @ Dulare, s/o late Keshav Prasad, aged about 12 years. 5. Kamlakant s/o late late Keshav Prasad, aged about 10 years. 6. Ku. Annapurna d/o late late Keshav Prasad, aged about 9 years. Appellant No. 3 to 6 are minor, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Shailbai. All are r/o D.M. 39, Ompur Colony, Rajgamar, Korba, district Korba C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants Hardeep Singh aged about 21 years s/o Guru Vachan Singh, r/o Ramsagarpara, Korba, district Korba C.G. (Driver of the offending vehicle) Gulzar Singh, aged 65 years, s/o Kehar Singh, r/o Ramsagarpara, Korba, district Korba C.G. (Owner of the offending vehicle) 1 ^ ^ '%• •^^.-^ -\^ ^/. ^- 3. The Oriental Insurance Company, through Branch Manager, Korba, district Korba C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miya, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (10th IVIay, 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 Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 178 of 2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.75,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Keshav Prasad, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.07.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% 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 Keshav Prasad died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ^ % 1 -// 17.07.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.12-ZC/1321; as the above offending vehicle Truck 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 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.75,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.75,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.50,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.50,0007- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Keshav Prasad in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ;'^ ;^. 1 ^^.•^ i^i 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miya, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- only. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insure of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.7,80,0007- as compensation to the claimants. 8) In a motor accidentclaim 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.75,000/- per annum as in the certificate (Ex.P/21) the gross total income of the deceased was shown to be Rss.78,042/- per annum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. •-"^ ^- lii 12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Keshav Prasad was shown to be 43 years of age in his postmortem report and 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 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal 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) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu