@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBiNCH Corain. : HON9BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Mjsc. Appeal fC) No. 61 of 2007 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1. 2. 0 3. Dvlai Sahy, Son of Shri Ramji Sahu, aged about 50 years Balsakhin Bai,Wife bf Shri Devlal Sahu, agedabout 45 years Om Kumari, D/o Shri Devlal Sahu, aged about 12 years, Minor through her natural guar^ian Father Devlal Sahu Atl resklents of Vitlage Gourbhatha, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur(CG) Versus 1. Bhanu Sahu, Son of Shri Meeralal Sahu, Resident ofj Sarvodaya Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur (CG) * 2. Rajesh Sharma, Son of Shri Bajrang Sharma, Resijdent of Plot No.C-2/9, SEC-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur(CG) 3. The New India Insurance Company limited, Madina Bujlding, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur(CG) MISCELLANEQUS APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF THE ,IVIOTOR VERICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri PP"6ahu and Shri SP Sahu, counsel for the appeilants. Shri P Dutta, counsel on behaif of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel fbr respondent No.3. .-^.--.-u TT -r-.^' •' .•.'•.-. ORDER (5th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupt2t,CJ.: This is claimants' < appeal for enhancemerrt of the compensation awarded by the 14th Addjtional Motor Acddents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.11.2006, passedin Claim Case No.88/2006. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.l4,00,000/-cia{med by the appellants/cjaimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Mukesh Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act fbr his death ini the motor accident on 02.04.2006, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.2,26,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri PP Sahu and Shri SP Sahu, leamedcounsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month, though he was getting Rs.100/- per dayand Rs.3,000/- per month; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensationofRs.2,26,200/-only. 4) Shri P; Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri SudhirAgr^al, learned counsel for respondent N.3 the New India Insurance Cortipany Limitedon the other hand submitted that the compensation of Rs.2,26,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and ;^^^ 2; c propercompensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9 5) In a motor accideiit claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/ Tribunals should be Justand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. It should neither be a meageramount of compensation nor a bonanza. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,26,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as pleaded by the daimants, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as 50% of Rs.36,000/- is required to be • deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased considering that he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamad and others v. Mohammed Jameel and another, reported in (2009)2 SCC 225; asthe claimants are parentsofthe deceased, theappropriate multiplierwould not be morethan 10 in the case in view of thedictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reporte^ in (2003) 8 SCC 731; by multiplying the annual dependency of\Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for ^^^^',. "i^, ""^ •f ^ 'i^i!g '%^s^ SBwyii^ padma lossof estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation which is less than the sum of Rs.2,26,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoingreasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge (\