R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION'BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 461 of 2006 mellants Claimants 1. Shanti Bhai Patel, aged about 55 years, s/o Iate Dhanji Bhai Patel. 2. Smt. N'irmala Ben, aged about 53 years, w/o Shanti Bhai Patel, Both are r/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, district Bastar Chhattisgarh. ‘ VERSUS Respondents 1. Budhman, aged about 24 years, s/o Ratiram, caste Muriya. 2. Lachdu, aged about 12 years, s/o .late Sitaram, minor, through natural guardian and. uncle Dhaniram, s/o Suku, aged about 35 years. 3. Chamru, s/o Sukma, aged 45 years, 4. Dhaniram, s/o Suku, aged 35 years, 5. Anantram, s/o Usaru, aged 35 years, Usari Bai, aged about 50 years, wd/o Chamaru, All above are r/o village Dudhagaon, tahsil Kondagaon, district Bastar C.G. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Jagdalpur, distt. Bastar‘C.G. W! 2 MA No 461 of 2006 8. Manohar Sinha Saggu, aged 47 years, s/o Iate Mohan Singh Saggu, 9. Smt. Manjit Kaur, aged about 45 years, w/o. Manohar Singh, Both are r/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, tahsil Kondagaon, district Bastar C.G. AQQeal under Section 173 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Mano; Paranjpe and Shrl Vikram DiXIt counsel for the appellants ‘ Shrl Sudhir Agrawal and Shrl P Dutta counsel for respondent No 7 ORDER (02“ November, 2011) i The following order of the Court was passed by l Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.25/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,57,920/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Kamlesh Patel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor. i“ Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.12.2004, the uw Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. I k W 3 M.A. No. 461 of 2006 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence Ied before it held that deceased Kamlesh Patel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the. motor accident on 08.12.2004; the accidentoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor—Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.—17ZD/0286 and C.G.-17ZD/0287 and the motorcyclist of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-17—B/5032, on which deceased Kamlesh Patel was travelling as pillion—rider; as the above Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by. the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.28,500/— per annum. By deducting Rs.12,000l- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the-claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.16,500/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,500/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,32,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Kamlesh Patel in the m‘otor accident. The Tribunal further“ directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation Of Rs.1 ,42,000/— @ 6% per annum. %\ M.A. No. 461 of 2006 6) Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.28,500/— per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,42,000/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.7, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ln 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) It is true that the claimants pleaded that their son Kamlesh Patel used to earn Rs.52,305/— per annum as he was looking after the sawmill of his father, no cogent,and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal in that behalf. The Tribunal, even then, has assessed the income of the‘deceased, taking that the contribution‘of the deceased in the business of his father was to the extent of 50%. 5 M.A. No‘ 461 of 2006 qwm Y : €£V 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record we do not fnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only Rs 12 000/- per annum towards the personal expenses of the deceased though the deduction in thatrvbehalf could have been to the extent of 50% of Rs.28,500/- considering that deceased Kamlesh Patel on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 13) The multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as claimant No.1 Shanti Bai Patel, father of deceased Kamlesh Patel was aged about 60 years on the date of the accident considering that his date of birth in his income-tax return is 10.05.1945. 14) The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Shyam Singh and Others reported (2011) 7 SCC-65 has held the multiplier of 8 to be appropriate in the case where the r deceased was aged about 19 years and was unmarried and his parents were aged about 56 years and 55 years. 15) For the foregoing reasons we do not fnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either ""W? "K s 6 M.A. No. 461 of 2006 (9? on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 16) The appeal filed by the appellantsl claimants for enhancement x Sd/— Sd/- ‘5 ‘ N.K.Agarwal (HdefJusdce Judge . ‘ subbu of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17) No order asto costs.