HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH: BILASP SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. M.A.ICl No. 532 of 2008 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Raghuvar Singh Parihar and another. Versus Anil Choudhry and others. ORDER Pronouncement oforder :€>.09.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS M.A. (Cl No. 532 of2008 1. Raghuvar Singh Parihar, S/o late Ghasi Sjngh Parihar, aged about 60 years. '2. Krishna Singh Parihar, S/o Raghuvar Singh Parihar, aged about 27 years. Both are R/o village -Khatti, Post-Khatti, Pdlice Station, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Anil Choudhry, S/o Satya Deo Choudhry, aged about 41 years, R/o Vijeta Complex, BlockNo.3, HIG-316, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District -- Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing No.C.G. 02/2522) 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing No.C.G. 02/2522) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri Abhishek Saraf, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. forthe State/respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (PassedonOQ>.09.2010) This is an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (forshort 'the Tribunal') passed in Claims Case No. 97/2007 whereby the-Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,24,000/- as total compensation to the claimants in a death case. 2. Brief facts ofthe case are thaton 21.04.2007 at 8.00 a.m. when the deceased Sumitra Bai was discussing with her son and tiusband near the outersjde of newRajendra Nagar, Raipur, at the same time, Maruti Car bearing No. C.G. 02/2522 (for short 'the offending vehicle') being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently, due to which, Sumitra Bai sustained YfS?^, serious injuries. She was immediately taken to M.M.IX=Rspital for necessary treatmentbut as soon as she reached the Hospital she has died. 3. Claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- was filed by the husband and son. In claim petition, it was pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 50 years and was earning R9.200/- per day. As against suchcompensation sought by the appellants for the death of Sumitra Bai in the motor accident occurred on 21.04.2007, the Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led before it, held that on the date of accident the driver of offending vehicle was negligent and due to his rash and negligent death of deceased took place. 4. As regards the income of the deceased, though the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day, but as there was no clinching and credible evidence led bythe appellants, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, 1500/- per month and Rs.18000/-. By deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal also held that appellant No.2 cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal, taking the age of the appellant No.1 at 60, applied multiplier of 10 to the said annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- and the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,24,000/- as total compensation for the death of Sumitra Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim petition till realization. The Tribunal directed that respondents No.1 to 3 shgll be jointiy and severallyliable to pay compensation to the appellant No.1. 4. Shri Abhishek Saraf, learned cpunsel appearing on behalfof the appellants argued that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal was not proper; the Tribunal has erred in awarding low amount of Rs.4000/- under the heads and award of compensation is also on lowerside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Suresh Tandon, learned cpunsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for 'w^ ^•^^ ^^^> ^ respondents No. 2 & 3 opposed the appeal and supported award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. 7. Though the appellant No.1 pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day by doing tailoring work but from the evidence of Jamuna Bai A.W.2 it has not come that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day, though she has admitted that the deceased was doing tailoring work. The learned Tribunal has taken the income ofthe deceased at Rs.50/- per day because the deceased was working in a village Khatti having near about 5000 population. In such village, it is not possible for a tailorgetting work daily of Rs.200/-. It is also clear from the evidence of Jamuna Bai A.W.2 there are twoother tailors also working in that village. Therefore, the learned Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personalexpenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed dependency of the appellant at Rs.1000/- per month. Taking noteof the age of deceased and the claimant, the dependency was worked out by the Tribunal is Rs. 1,20,000/- 8 . It is clear that the age of claimant No.1 is 60 years and according to post-mortem report, age of the deceased was 55 years. In the second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 8 was fixed in the age group of 55-60. Even then, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and the claimant has used multiplier of 10 on the dependency ofRs.1,20,000/-, which, l am of the considered view, cannot be faulted with. This apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- toward funeral expenses and RS.2000A- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,24,000/-. The learned Tribunal has not erred in awarding such compensatjon, which is not bonanza nor meager. 5, t-t? The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award 'just and reasonable' compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on thepart of driver of the offending vehicle. It has ....•/..•^^^^:. ^'2rl"% ^ '^ ^•' .^" ^ ^f to be borne in mind that the compensation is not ^xpecjB^I to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must bejustand itcannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh fhe various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adoptedfor assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see Stete ofHaryana and another-Vs- Jasbir Kaurand others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 and We/en C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Transport Corporationandanother, (1999) 1 SCC 90. 4® For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the appeal \A^ as the compensation ofRs. 1,24,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthecase. v^1^. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is liable to beand is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs- . : Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge