^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 888 of 2010 1 Smt Sewti Patel, widow of late Shobhnath Patel, aged about 27 years 2 Minor Ku Sonam Patel, d/o Late Shobhnath Patel, aged about 5-1/2 years 3 Minor Leges Son of Late Shobhnath Patel, aged about 2-1/2 years 4 Babu LalPatel, Son of Hansram Patel, aged about60years 5 Smt Mongra Bai, wife of Babu Lal Patel, aged 55 years Appellants No.2 and 3 are minor through its natural guardian mother Smt Se^vti Bai (Appelalnt No.1) All are r/o Village Jaimura, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (CG) Respondents VERSUS Anil Kumar Paikra, son of Chain Singh Paikra, R/o village Kharha, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur, CG (Driver) Lakhan Lal Sahu, son of Resham Lal Sahu, R/o Amlideeh, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (CG) (Owner) The New India Insurance Company Limited Division Office-2, Pandari, Raipur (CG) (Insurer) E: .,:?;•*"•"•''s. ./y^ i;' &l!yg«y"ailj •^jsy ''•'SSsB^'*1 M.A.C.No.888of2010 ^ Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Ms Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (11th October, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.06.2010, passed in Claim Case No.6/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.38,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Shobhnath Patel by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 27.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) .The Tribunal on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Shobhnath Patel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.02.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver fe ^'^ ^ M.A.C.No.888of2010 of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG 04 JA 4515; as the aboye offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 16.000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shobhnath Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Ms Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel 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.3,000/-'per month and Rs.36,000/- per L M.A.C.No.888of2010 ^ annum only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.2 Lakhan Lal Sahu the owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Couri:s / 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. TO) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shobhnath Patel used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs.10,000/- per month by supplying labour to Monnet Company, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no documentary evidence /^^ '"^ ^^^'""" "^j ,^^ i.^'yy •"ess.isaStSf 5 I.A.C.No.888of2010 ^ was produced before the Tribunal to establish that deceased Shobhnath Patel had any agricultural land at all. Neither in the claim petition nor in the evidence led before the Tribunal the extent of the alleged agricultural land of the deceased has been spelt out. Similarly, the evidence led by the claimants about the income of Rs.10,000/- of the deceased by supplying labour to Monnet Company is also highly suspicious and cannot be acted upon. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12) The cla'imants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) Considering that deceased Shobhnath Patel was shown to be 35 years of age in his postmortem repori:, the multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35years. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. ^^^"f--" '^SSSSS-^''" AA' 6 M.A.C. No.888of2010 A padma 15) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge 1