^^^Sfi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR OIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal (0 No. 361 ^t 2006 ADpeIIant Claimant G. Narayan Swami, S/o Jagnnath Swami, aged about 50 years, R/o WRS Police Station - Urla, Raipur District-Raipur(CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-Claimants Rai Singh Sahu, aged about 40 years, S/o Ram Singh Sahu, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Village - Dallirajhara, District Durg (CG) Hajur Singh, S/o Jwala Singh, R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Village Dallirajhara, District Durg (CG) The National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Office of Mobin Mahal, GE Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) Rajesh Bhawnani, S/o Satish Bhawnani, R/o Naharpara, Police Station - Ganj, Raipur, district-- Raipur (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (21 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT,1988. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ist (015IApril,2011) /^4 '/"^ -../' ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate father of deceased N Ramchandran Swami is appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of fhe compensation awarded by the 11 Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2006, passed in Claim Case No.01/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate father of deceased N Ramchandran Swami by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- only, as the appellant's son N Ramchandran Swami would have extended great support to the appellant in his old age. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learnecl counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand,- supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- awarded by the.Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to^warrant enhancement in this appeal. r 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compehsation 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensationof Rs.2,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 7) The claimant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum as the claimant himself pleaded and proved that the income ofthe deceased was at Rs.4,000/- per month. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and there were only two members in the family i.e. the deceased himself and the sole claimant, his father,'dependent on the income ofthe deceased. 9) As the claimant was father of the deceased and was aged about 55 years, multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be- found faultwith. 1 (^ 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. r.is Sd/- Chief Justice -\ s&'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu