HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: MON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,G.J.& HON'BLESMRIN.K.AGARWAL,J. Misc. AbDeal (Cl No. 779 of 2007 ADpellants Applicants ResDondents Non-appliGants 1. Mahip Kumar son of Netram Patel, aged about 42 years, 2. Smt. Padmawati, aged abbut 40 years, wife of MahipKumar, Both are resident of village .t.gsharsingh, tahsil jand district RaigarhC.G. S At present resided at village Kabaripali, P.0. Kotmi, tah. Dabhra, and district Janjgir-Champa C.G. VERSUS 1. Narendra Ma!ik, son of Shri Swaroop Singh, resident of SECL Gevra Project, Korba, Tah. and distt. Korba C.G. OwnerofTruckNo. C.G.12ZC0932 2. Indrajeet Kumar Pandey, son of Shri Brijvilas Pandey, resident of Chittawan Bigaha, P.S. Kutumba distt. Aurangabad (Bihar), DriverofTruck NO.C.G.12ZC0932 At present resided at Dipika, P.S. Kusmunda, tahsil and distt. Korba 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Office in front of Gopi theater, Raigarh, distt. Raigarh C.G. lnsurerofTruckNo.C.G.12ZC0932 Memoof apfieal under Sectioh 173 of the hflotor Vehicles Act. ea Present: Ms. Sofia Khan, counsel for the appellants. Shri ShreekumarAgrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. ORDER (20tt'July,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Bhuvan Ratel are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhanGement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.Q4.2007, passed inClaim CaseNo.26/2007. • 2) As against thecompensation of Rs.35,52,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Bhuvan Patel, by filing aclaim petition under SectiOn 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accidenton 24.10.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,08,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from'the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payrr]@nt. ~ 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck bearing registrationNo.CG-12 ZC/0932 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. y !N»<1 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck has notfiled any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same nowhas attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,080/- per month. By multiplying the annuat monthly income of Rs.2,080/- with the multiplier of 12 and thereafter multiplying the annual income with the multiplier of 17, the Tribunalassessed the total compensation at Rs.4,24,320/-. By deducting 1/3"iof this amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the i • '. compensation payable to fhe claimants on account of the lossof dependency was worked out to Rs.2,83,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,08,000/- as compensation to the claimants forthe death of their son Bhuvan Patel in the motor aGcident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- @ 6% per annumfrom thedate of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Ms. Sofia Khan, learned eounsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income _of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,080/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned eounsel forrespondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle k^1! J iMa^,.^^ ^S-tvay^ ^^^ss^'' & Truck, on theother hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sumof Rs.3,08,000/- to the claimants who are parents of deceased Bhuvan Patel, who was unmarried on the date of the accident. 8) In a motor apcident 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 cirGumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amountof eompensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 10) The claimants pleaded that their son deceased Bhuvan Patel used to earn Rs.3,800/- per month by working as security guard and the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.2,080/- per month. 11) Even assumingthe income of the deceased at Rs.3,800/- per month as pleaded bythe claimants, the dependency ofthe claimants would not be more than Rs.1,900/- per month and Rs.22,800/- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses^ Considering that deceased Bhuvan Patel was unmarried on the date ofthe accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed ahd others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation ^•-"'.^••^-^ -'y ^./- -s<:-^~st.'' y &., ^ \ :. ""*S9* .: ^\ ^ .':y •v.'^.cS/^y '£. subbu 1 and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would be 10 in view of the dictum of the 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, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.22,800/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation would work out to Rs.2,28,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,53,000/- which is less than the amount of Rs.3,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the Gompensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. ——^- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge