'4 H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Aopeal (Cl No. 1812 of 2009 AppeHants ^— 1 Prabhuram, s/o Chamru, aged about 45 years 2 Smt Ramhin Bai, w/o Prabhuram, aged about 40 years 3 Jaisingh, s/o Rajaram Sahu, aged about15years No.3 minor, through natural guardian, Prabhuram S/o Chamrua Ram, r/o village Jantalgundra, PS and Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki Distt Rajnandgaon VERSUS Respondents 1 Suraj Singh, s/o Narsingh Nishad, aged about 26 years, r/o village Madarn PS Dongargaon, Tahsii and District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2 M/s Mahavir Construction Company, Prop Shantilaj Bohara, Mahavir Kunj, Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon (CG) - 3 Branch Manager, UniteGt India jnsurance Company Limited, Comthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act , Present : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 i and2. Shri Shreekumar Agrawat and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ^y^ ^":... i%sft^l "'^t MACNo.1§12of2009 _ ORDER (10th October. 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.05.2009, passed in Claim Case No.167/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,04,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brolher of deceased Sohan by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor acctdent on 02.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,500/- as compensation along wlth 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 that deceased Sohan died on accountofthe Snjuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.10.2008; the acoident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drlver of ttie offending vehicle Truck-Tipper bearing registration No.CG 08 B 3371; as the above offending vehtole Truck-Tipper on the date of the accident was insured with the United tndia Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy condltions, the tnsurance Companywas liable to pay compensation to the daimants. ff ^. ^' i 1l?"%fc^. | '^.,. ^^./' -i:;'%-&'.--" p'^ MACNo.1512of2CX39 4) As the respondents have not flled any appeat against the award. the above findings recorded by the Tribunat have now attained flnality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 50% of R8.3,000/" towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,C%X)/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,80,00©/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,500/- under other heacte, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84.500/- as Gompensation to the Glalmants for the death of deceased Sohan 'm the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the clalm petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptir^ the claimants' evidence about the Income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; In deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; in awarding (ow sum of Rs.4,500/- only under other heads; and In awardtng IQW compensation of Rs.1,84.800/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal and Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the United Indialnsurance Company :'^^! .\ ^'1'' ^ i ''^^:-.' - --, -r '-. ^.x ^.. • ^ A' '^, '^^/ "•;--;-%;<. (^-7 MACNo.1S12of2009 LimSted, the insurer of the offending vehlcte Truck-Tipper on the other hand supported ttie award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,84,500/" awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondente No.1 Suraj Singh and No.2 M/s Mahavir construction Company Prop. Shantilal Bohra, the driver and owner of the offendlng vehlGle Truck-Tipper also supported the award. 9) tn a motor accident claim case what is important Is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate shoutd be just and proper compensation in the facts and ctrcumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor abonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- awarded by the Tribunal ts just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Sohan used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month by working as Conductor on the said Truck-Tipper, no cogent and reliable evidence was ted before the Tribunat for establishing the Sncome ofthe deceased to the extent of Rs.4,500/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not flnd any Irtfirmity in the assessment ofthe income of the deceased by the T-ribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 12) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses too cannot be found teult •?--^ 4 .// •^?^ MACNo.1512of2009 ^. ^. with considering that deceased Sohan on the date ©fthe accldent was unmamed and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the oases of Syed fiasheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Gourt Gases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus DelN Transport Corporation and another reported In (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 13) The multtplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal also does not suffer from any infirmity as the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view ofthe dlctum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Municlpal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in <2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, (he multlplier should never exceed 10. 14) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly erred in awarding low sum of Rs.4,500/- only under other heads. 15) In our considered oplnion, a further award of Rs.10,000/" inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- awarded by the Tribunal asjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest eomponent on the enhanced amount 6f compensatjon in addition to the sum of Rs.1,84,500/- awarded bythe Tribunal. p ^ 4' 6 MACNo.1512of2009 ^3 SlmA 17) Respondent No;3 the Untted India tnsurance Gompany 1-imited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ) Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge