HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (C\ No.630 of 2010 Appeliants Ciaimants 1 Smt Yamini Bai, widow of iate Santosh Kashyap, aged about 28 years 2 Vikash Kumar, son of late Santosh Kashyap, aged about 6 years 3 Akash Kumar, son of iate Santosh Kashyap, aged about 3 years No.2 and 3 are minor through their natural guardian mother appetiant No.1 Smt Yamini Bai All r/o Viilage Thakurtola, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG) at present their r/o C/o Yuvraj Thakur, son of Late Jagmohan Thakur, R/o Village Basin, Post Karanja, Bhiiai, DistrictDurg (CG) Respondents VERSUS Dameshwar son of Johari Ram Sahu, aged about 20 years, at present R/o Ward No.54, PS Pulgaon, District Durg (CG) (Driver) Gopal Das Khatri and sons, son of Mansha Ram Khatri, aged about 37 years, r/o 550, Kanwr Nagar, Sindhi Colony, PS Mohan Nagar, District Durg (CG) (Owner) The Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd., its Corporate Office, 4-5 floor, tffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gudgaon, Hariyana Through Its Djvisional Manager, Division Office, 3rd Floor, Shop No.345-347, Laiganga MACNo.630of2010 .^•- Shopping Mal, GE Road, Raipur District Raipur (CG) (Insurer) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, counselfor theappellants. Shri Janak Hidco, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3 though served. ORDER &th (19mSeptember,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 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 16.04.2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.102/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,38,000/- claimed by theappellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Santosh Kashyap by filing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 05.06.2009, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.4,34,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actua! payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held the Iffco Tokiyo Genera! Insurance Company Limited; the insurer of the offending vehicte Metador bearing registration ,^'~" ^- ^ 1 ^1% ."v^ ^, t. MACNo.630 of 2010 ;'GI No.CG 07 CA/0325 iiable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Metador has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitipiier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,34,000/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Santosh Kashyap in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appeilants vehementiy 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 monthand Rs.36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- only. 7) Shri Janak Hidco, learned counsel for respondents No.1 .Dameshwar and No.2 Gopal Das Khatri and sons, the driver :.x":"^:% /^•^ "^, f&Jl"I ;l '^ai^ j I? ^ •^^^^ ^ MACNo.630 of 2010 and owner of the offending vehicie Metador on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) 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. 9) Now, weshall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Santosh Kashyap used to earn Rs.300/- per day and Rs.9,000/- per month as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to that extent. tn this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunat on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usua! 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 12) The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the hlgher side as deceased Santosh Kashyap was shown to be 30 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex ;' %-:'-"i&. 1 '""'-1.;!'S^% i ^.-... ^"-^..^' ^i:-^£^^"' MAC No.630 of 2010 Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus DeShi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. 13) 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 Tribuna! or the multipiier 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 ama