HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble ShriR. L. Jhanwar, JJ. Misc.ADDeaii^^57of 2007 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Punita Thakur, aged about 47 years; Wd/o Phool Singh Thakur,R/o village, Tifra, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus 1. Bishesar Singh, aged about 35 years, S/p Shri Jodhan SingM, R/o ahead of Kushtha Rog Karyalaya, Jorapra, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Chandram Gond, aged 30 years, S/o Shri Bahoran Gond, at present residing at Jorapara, Bilaspur, permanenf R/o village Sondih, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3. National Insurance CQmpany, Bilaspur (C.G.) , , v 4. Gopal Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Pheku Lal Sahu, R/6 S.E.G.L Cplony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) : MISC. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTACT ADpearance: Mr. Prayeen Kumar Tulsiyan, counsel for the appellant. Mr; Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. RajAwasthi, counselfQrrespQndentNo.3. None for respondent N6.4 thbugh served. ORALORDER (30.11.2009) PerSunilKumarSinha,J- Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, which is an application forcondonation ofdelayin filingtheappeal. 2. According to the Office report, the appeal is barred by 1184 days of limitation. /. .'< 3. On due cqnsideration ofthesubmissionsmade by the learned counsel for the p^rties and the grounds taken in the application for L. M.AmNo.357of2007 G condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal and the same deserves to be condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2007 is allowed and the delay of 1184 days in filing theappeal is hereby condoned. 5. Learned coun^el for the parties are also heard on admission. 6. Appellant - Punita Thakur is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 54 / 2002 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide award dated 15th November, 2002. 7. Deceased - Bhanu Pratap Singh was the son ofthe appellant. He was aged about 18 years. He died in the motor accident on 04.07.2000 when the motor cycle on which he was travelling as a pillipn riderwas dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. M.P. 26/KD/0090 on accountof rash and negligent driving of the driverof the truck. The claimant / mother claimedcompensation of Rs.9,06,000/- on accpyntof death of deceased - Bhanu PratapSingh iri the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shepleaded that her son deceased - Bhanu Pratap Singh was earning Rs.2000/- per month 8. The claim petition filed by the claimant was opposedby the owner and driver as also by the insurance company. They pleaded that the accident occurred bn account of negligence of the driver of the motor cycle. The insurance company further took a plea that the offending vehicle wasbeing driven in breachof policy conditions. 9. Thelearned Claims Tribunalrecorded a finding that the acddent occurredon accountofrash and negligent driving ofthe offending truckby its driver and respondents No.1, 2 and Swere jointly and severally liable to pay compensatjpn to the appellant/claimant, i\ •^ Elr M.AfaNo.357of2007 10. Though the claimant pleaded that her son was earning Rs.2000/- per month butthe evidence led in that behalf was not in clinchihg nature. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal resprted to the provision of schedule prepared underSection 163/Aofthe MptorVehiclesActandassessed the amount of compensation on the basis of nQtjpnalihcome of Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per annum. The Tribunal used multiplierof 16 and the amountof compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,60,000/-. By adding further sym of Rs.7500/- under other heads, a total sum of Rs.1,67,500/- was awarded as the amount compensation to the claimant/appellant on account pf death of deceased - Bhanu Pratap Singh in motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing claim petition till its realisation. 11. Mr. Praveen Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the assessment of the income was not prope;rand proper multiplier wasnotused.HepraysforenhancementoftheamountofcompensatJon awarded to the claimant / appellant by the Tribunal. 12. On the otherhand, Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu and Mr. Raj Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents .opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 13. We have heard learned counsel forthe parties at length and have alsoperused the records oftheClaims Tribunal. 14. We find that theevidence in regard to the jnGome of the deceased was not clinchihg. Therefore,the Tribunal has rightly resorted to the provisions of Section 163/Aof the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has takenRs.15,000/- per annum asriotional income of the deceased. This notional income of Rs. 1 5,000/- was prescribed in the year 1994. Looking to the rise in prices of various essential commodities and cost of living in between the yea,r,51994 tb the year 2000, the Tribunal ought to have held 't ..^._l'.j.r:_r the notional inoj3me of Rs.15,000/-prescribed in theyear 1994 as Rs.24,000/- in the^ear 2000 which we have taken in many cases. Ifwe M.ArCyNo.357of2007 n\ 'T propose to recalculate the amount of compensation by taking notional income as Rs.24,000/-, we find that there would be hardly an increase in the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Theappellant is the mother of the deceased and she was the only dependant. Therefore, the deduction of one half has to be made and the amount of dependency would come as Rs.12,000/- So faras the multiplieris concerned, the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16 in this case. In view pf the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Municioal Comorationof GreaterBombav-Vs- Laxman lver& another. (2003) 8 SCC 73'f. the multiplier of 10 would have been the proper multiplier. Therefore, the amount of eompensation would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. Even if we add Rs.10,000/- under other permissible heads, the maximum amount payable to the claimant / appellaht would not be more than Rs.1,30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,67,5007-whichis higher thanthisamount. •^ 15. The law in relation to awardingcompensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 the Tribunalsare under obligation toaward "just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine claimants after determiningthe factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act onthe part of driver ofthe offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compenslation is not expected tobe windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicatethat the conrtpensation must be just and itcannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a dutyto weigh the various factors and quantifythe amount ofcompensation, which should be justand which would depend upon the particular facts and cirpumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please seeStateof Harvanaand another-Vs-JasbirKaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. 1—~. —~.—' —^T~I--Z^ Rebello (Mrs.^and others —vs-Maharashtra State Road TranspOrt Comoration an^another. (1999} 1 SCC90. r^- ilt' ^< Ijjj"^' ir^ ^ M.A(CVNo.357of2007 16. In view ofthe foregoing, we find that theamount pf compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by th9 Claims Tribunal. 17. The appeal filedby the claimant / appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 18. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge ^ 'w '\ r~1r