^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 898 of 2011 Appellants/ Claimants ^•-".."l Respondents c ^ ,/ Smt. Chandana Ghosh w/o late Shrip Pradip Kumar Ghosh, aged about 45 years. Ku. Jyoti Ghosh d/o late Shri Pradip Kumar ghosh, aged about 18 years. Both are resident of ward no.16, Haldibadi, Police Station, Chirmiri, tahsil Khadganwa, district Korea C.G. VERSUS Sanwal Kumar Bharti s/o Shri Bhuneshwar Chouhan, aged about 37 years, original address resident of village Bajtera, Police Station Sohramau, district Unanao U.P. Present Address r/o Subhash Colony, Domanhil, police station Chirmiri, district Korea C.G. (Driver of alleged vehicle) Dharmendra Kumar s/o Shri Ramsumer Chuhan, aged about 21 years, r/o village Malak Pyagi, police station Snerao, post Khargapur, district Allahaba, U.P. Present Addresss r/o subhash Colony, Domanhil, police station Chirmiri, district Korea C.G. (Owner of alleged vehicle) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager 570, Rectifire, House Naigam Cos Road, Vadala, west Mumbai400031 (Insurer of alleged vehicle) ^4 ^&]^^^^ MAC.No. 898 of 2011 ^^ Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. t Present: Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for the appellants. ORDER ^th (29mAugust,2011) The following prder of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application forcondonation ofthe delay in filing theappeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Korea (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.01.2011, passed in Claim Case No.46/2010. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.34,70,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimaftts, unfortunate widow and daughterof deceased Pradeep Kumar Ghosh by filing a claim petition under ,.:,^a&al!-%^; ^^' ";-- % 9s?s^^; % i^^i3|i, \.^s/ MAC.No. 898 of 2011 ^ c ^^ Section166 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct, for his death in the motor accident on 14.04.2008, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.22,79,356/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.25,737/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.25,737/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.17,158/- per month and Rs.2,05,896/- per annum. By multiplying the annualdependency of Rs.2,05,896/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.22,64,856/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.14,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.22,79,356/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Pradeep Kumar Ghosh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.22,79,356/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.25,737/- per month only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.22,79,356/- only. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should -'rs^^ 1 :i^^b T? '^' s ^^/./ '^"../'' MAC.No. 898 of 2011 ^ c {'"\. 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.22,79,356/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthe facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) From para 19 of the impugned award we gather that before the Tribunal neither copy of the income-tax return of the deceased was produced nor the pay slips for whole of the year were produced. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.25,737/- per month. 12) The deduction of 1/3 of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with as there were only three members in the family, including the deceased dependent on theincome ofthe deceased. 13) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Pradeep Kumar Ghosh was aged about 52 years on the date of the accident, cannot be said to be on the lower side as 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 prescribes the multiplier of 11 for the age group between 51-55 years. 14) Even otherwise, the Tribunal has taken a liberal view by assessing the compensation on the basis of the salary of the deceased for 11 years as the deceased had only 8 years of service left on the date of the acddent. -'••x\ MAC.No. 898 of 2011 ^.< 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensationawarded by the Tribunal. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu c