^.p.^. DIVSSION BENCH 'BLE SH 'BLE SUNIL >.33Sof ,J, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Smt. Nandani Bai, W/o Thakur Ram, aged 35 yrs. Vidhabhushan, s/o late Thakur Ram, aged 17 yrs. Ku. Subhashini, d/o late Thakur Ram, aged 15 yrs. Ku. Kiran, d/o iate Thakur Ram, aged 14yrs. Ku. Sashi, d/o late Thakur Ram, aged 11 yrs. ; Smt. Sita Bai, W/o Bodhrai Sahu aged 60 yrs. Bodhrai Sahu, S/.o Shivram Sahu aged 37yrs. lants no. 2 to 5 represented by Legal guardian mother Nandini Bai. ; All R/o. Vill: Jondi, Post: Champarah, P.S. Navapara, Rajim, Dist: Raipur. 1. 3. Duryodhan Sinha, S/o. Laxminath Singha R/s. Kathia No.2, P.S. Gobara, Navapara, District: Raipur (C.G.) Smt: Sadhana Devi, W/o. Shikharchand Bafna, R/o. P.S. Navapara, Rajim, Dist: Raipur. i The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd throiigh Divisional Manger, Divisional Office Kutchheri Chowk, Dist: Raipur (C.G.)| | lemo of aopea! underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct :'^. Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel forthe appellants. Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent ).3. •th The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20-01-2003, passed in Claim Case No.65 of2002. 2) The appellants/ claimants; unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Thakur Ram claimed compensation of Rs.41,00,000/- by )1ling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 08.09.1999 when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicie Truck bearing registration No. M.P.23D/4522, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 3) The owner, driver and ihsurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer of the Truck took the further plea that the driver ofthe Truck was not holding a valid driving license and the Truck was being pliedin breach ofthe policy conditions. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined AW1 :Smt. Nandani Bai and AW2 Mahendra Kumar Sahu in support ofitheir £=i. d!-;B¥a« *-u^.: "^. •iw&.i . ^ if' /'~~"lvl ' ^ ;t."'lfl ;1''srairl claim, whereas, the owner, driver and insurer examined NAW1 Duryodhan Sinha and NAW2 Rajesh Kumar Bhargava in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the parties held that deceased Thakur Ram died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.09.1999; the accident occurred due to the rash nealigent drivina ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could notsstablish any breach ofthe policy CQnditions, the Insurance Companywas liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multlpiier of 14, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,36,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,76,000/- as compensation to the claimants fpr the death of deceased Thakur Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- ,*. :^.. 'l 1 'y-^l ?' y^ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition til! the date ofactual payment. 8) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the claimants'evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deductlng 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses; in selecting the lower muitiptier of 14; and in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.3,76,000/- only. 9) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the awardand contended that the compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the faets and circumstances of She present case. 10} Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsei for respondents No. 1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehiele also supported the award. 11) In a motor accident ctaim 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 cireumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 12) Now we shall examine asto whetherthe compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just andl proper compensation in the facte and circumstances ofthe presenticase. rfN*-An-' •»c ,'.<,- ^%.& \,, ; \i,<1:3'i%?' ^aii^y subbu 13) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Thakur Ram used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from his Kirana, Food-grains and Cloth Shop and in addition to that he was also having agricultural income of about Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, but the evidence led by the claimants in that behatf was not of citnching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate. 14) The multiptier of 14 selected by the Tribunal considering; the age of the deceased, his widow, their children and parents also cannot be said to be on the lower side. 15) On due consideration of the submissions of learned coynsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the compensatiQn of Rs.3,76,0007- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 16) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or|the multiplier selected. . | ; 17) The appeai filed by the appellants/claimants i ifor enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable t6|be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. l| 18) No order as to costs. sd/- CSuef Justice Sd/- N.K. Agawal Judge s.s