HIGH CO RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH —.--_...__-_.._-_--a_ CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. w Misc. Appeal No. 458 of 2003 Appellants 1 Lakshman Prasad, son of Korbehara, Applicants aged about 50 years. 2 Bimala Bai, wife of Lakshman Prasad, « aged about 45 years. Anita Bai, wife of Ramnath, aged about 24 years. 4 Lakhanlal, son of Ramnath, aged about 7 years. 5 Kum. Yasoda, daughter of Ramnath, aged about 4 years. 6 Raghunandan, son of late Ramnath, aged about one year. Applicant's ‘No. 4 to 6 being minors, through their mother Anita Bai. All by caste Kiwat, residents of viltage Motimpur, Tah. Pandariya, dist. Kawardha C.G. (Previously in Biiaspur district) Versus Surendra Singh Thakur, son of Mahipal Singh Thakur, aged about 40 years, Vehicle owner Marshal Jeep No. M.P. 26 EA-1380, resident of Bairagpara, Respondents Non-applicant No.1 Pandariya, dist: Kawardha C.G. (Previously in Bilaspur district) on—applicantNo2 2 United lndia Insurance Company Limited, Cover Note No. 22489, 68, lndira Commercial Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba, dist. Korba C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act /// N @ Present : ShriQ. Aziz, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri D.L. Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.2. _ —.L..-—__..- ORDER (04m February, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claiménts’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ci’aims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) ‘ vide award dated 19.02.2003, passed in Claim Case No.04/2002. 2) - As against the compensation of Rs.11,85,000/—, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Ramanthu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 12.06.2000 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the‘motor accident on 06.06.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,47,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence aboLit the income of the deceased and in assessing his 'income at Rs.2,500£— per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,47,000l- only. \‘ a 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri D.L. Dewangan, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the United lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.3,47,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) ln a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals 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. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramnath was getting salary of Rs.120/- per day and in addition to that he was also getting daily allowance of Rs.30/- per day, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. ln this state of evidence, we do not nnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/— per month. Even otherwise, a Jeep driver in the year 2000 ordinarily was getting salary of Rs.2,500/— per month only. 8) The Tribunal has~rightly assessed the claimants’ dependency by deducting the usual 1/3” of the income of the deceased. 9) The muitiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunai also cannot be said to be on the lower side as deceased Ramnath was shown to be 30 years of age in the medical papers.‘ 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellantsl claimants for e‘hhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ///"/<if":Vi 12) NO Order asto costs.‘ y/i///»S»Vdl‘ Kuma" St‘ma Judge Sd/— Chief Justice i if suan r nirn_r_ni l l l l :JZLVW H