CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1 129 of 2005 Appeuants Applicants Respondents Non-applicants Smt. Budhan Bai wd/o Jhagaluram Dheemar, age 40 yrs. Pardeshiram age 21 yrs. Pardeshin Bai, age 22 yrs. Shrimati Bai, age 19 yrs. ltwari Bai age 18 yrs. Parmeshwar Dheemar age 07 yrs. No. 6 by No.1 mother & natural‘ guardian No.2-6 are children of Jhagaiuram Dheemar and rlo. viii. Binaura, P.S. & Teh. Palaari, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Jhaduram Banjare Banjare age 42 driver r/o viii. Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, distt. Raipur C.G. Present Address: clo Harshnath Singh, s/o Hanuman Singh, Pachpedinaka, disttf Raipur C.G. Harshnath Singh s/o Hanuman Singh age 55 yrs Owner, Pachpedinaka, distt. Raipur C.G. Divisional Manager; the National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, Second Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present: s/o Bisauha 1. 'AOJ O) O‘l N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. . Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. 2 M‘A. No. 1129 of2005 ORDER (29th August, 2011) 2\ compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vlde award dated 14.03.2005, passed in Claim Case No.42/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Jhanglu Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 26.07.2004 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,37,000/— as compensation _ along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date'of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.04— E/0331, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Minibus has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) 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 claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/— per annum. The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeai for enhancement of f‘w‘ 3 y (L / M.A. No. 1129 of2005 By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/— with the muitiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000l— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,37,000l— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jhangiu Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,37,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 6) Shri Raja Sharma, Iearned counsel for the appeiiants vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/— per annum only; in deducting 1/3‘d of the income of the deceased L towards his personal expenses in place of 1/4‘“; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; in not awarding any sum towards medical expenses though the deceased remained hospitalized for a period of about 10 days; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,37,000/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, Iearned. counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited,. the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8)- Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel fpr respondents No.1 s l 4 M.A. No. 1129 of 2005 Jhaduram Banjare and No.2 Harshnath Singh, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Minibus also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 10) Now, we shaii examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,37,000l— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jhanglu Ram used to earn Rs.6,000/— per month from agriculture and fisheries, no: cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. Fcr the reasons best known to the claimants no revenue record was produced before the Tribunal to establish that deceased Jhanglu Ram had any agricultural land at all. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12) Even assuming 'the dependency of the claimants at‘ Rs.27,ooo/— per annum by deducting 114‘“ of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants; the appropriate multiplier for the age of AM VA ”2/? estl 5 M.A. No. 1129 0f 2005 the deceased who was shown to be 55 years of age in his postmortem report would be only 11 in view of 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 wherein multiplier of 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51—55 years; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,000l— with the multiplier of 11 the compensation would work out to Rs.2,97,000/—; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.25,000/— towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,37,000/—, the same amount which the Tribunal has awarded under the impugned award. 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 Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement 2% nlmml a) __}’ of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order asto costs. ‘ Scy— 'Sdr- l ; N. K.Agarwal T Chief Justice l Judge