> DIVISIQNBENCH GORAMs 1^0»1«^^81W^VME^^yri^^<^ NC^>Bl^SHiatl.K. ARmL,J< MisceUaiieous ABBMl(eiN^3^^»»^ ADDellants Respondents 1 Gulain Rasyt, ^oUAe NaN Bt»(,^»:S§ 2 Snrt Abruparvh'i W> ©utem^astrt, ^|B : SO.I^PragaftNa^BhUai.a^^ VER8US 1^0 t B Jaikrislma, @/©!B^ VtenRet^hwar (SawcNh ?^» Thonttitlsachi. PST'ii<a^@Rcl,^^ {TI^ <^ Macteas R<^ UM^, B |Htfl, Khamtarai.Raipyr * 2 Smut F>iemva^, ^^ N @^^ No^ 18T Mato Road. 11 CCE»S. Kateipalaoham, Banglore 3 Dh^ional' Nai^ © ftentat ^nsuFanoe Co^ l^,,44eWe^<^^^^^^^ Kumar Ooroptex, 1'" Ftoor, Tirplwi'is^ 63^11 thtmighDNfelonalOff^ Nagar, Durg » Misc. Appeal under Sectlon 173 ofth®MotorVehtete Acfc 18OT Present: Shri Amiyakant Tlwari,' 8hri AMiishelc Sinha and Shri \fe un E^^^, ©oun861 for pespondent No.3. ORDER (30th June, 2011} '\ '^' 1 I'l, The following order ©ftie @@ufft wa® passed Rajeev Gupta, CJ. The unfbrtunate parents of deceased ©ulamdVarte »@iaiia» the appellants before us in tliis appeal for enharosemCTt @f the ,-^.....;,. compensatton awarded by the 12lh A<telftional Motfflr Aeetctent Claims Trtbunal, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vid®aMiaral dal^ 23.09.2006, passedtFiGlaim Ca®eNo.t7S^006. 2) As against ttw corapensaUon of lls.1€,96.C)OQ^,etelmed l^ the appellants/olatmants, vnfortuoat®parents of cteeeased ©ulam Varis Khan, by NUng adaim petltion under Sectlon 1^^@ftie ft4otor Vehlctes Act, fbr hts death in ^f, motor aGGlctent ^n 16.03.2004, the Trit)un8Aawarcledatotal8uniofl^.3,28,tQ(^*as compefisatlon along wtth interesk @ 6% per iwinuro ft'om Uw itate of ^ling ofthe ctetm p^ttion tlll th®date of actual payrtwnt. 3) The Tribunat on aelose scrutoy of the mtlre evldenw 1«1 before it hetei (he insurer of th? offendlng vehM®tottetr^iBariiig: r^stratlon No.KA^/AA/7077 tiabteto pay'compens^on to^ ^ clalmants. The Trlbunal assessed the InGorae ofttie cteceaaed at ~Rs.5,025A. per month and Rs.60^0(S/- per annum. By deetecing 1/3rd of Rs.60,300/- towards the personal expens^ c^ the deceased, ttie ctaimants' dependencywi|8 assessed at N&.4@,20Q/- perannum. BymuBlplytng the annual depeTidenGy ©yRs.^.^O/- with the muttipHer of 8, ttic compensgrtton w»s wortted out (0 ^ Rs.3,21,6CX)/-^ By awarding further sum of R8.4,^X^- imder othw heads, the TribiS^al awarded a tolal sum of Rs.8,^,10®A«,as ^' compen^itlon to trte Glaimants for the cteath of cteGea ®d©utemn lllfc^^. i .,t Varis Khan in ttie moitor accfetent. The Trlbunat ^ijttwr clirwted payment of irterest on (he above amount of eompenMiMoit of Rs.3,26,100/- @ 6% per annum from the date of flling ^the ctalm pettlton tlll the date of aotuat paymej^. 4) Shrt Amiyakant Tiwari, leamed coyn^l f©rthe a|ip®ttarrt» vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awardlng tow compen8atlonofRs.3,26,100/-ORly. S) Shri Abhishek Stnha and Shri Varyn Dubey, teumed e@iu"i^l for respondent No.3 the Oriental tnsurarice Giwi^pany Ut^ttect, insurer @f the offendlng vehfete tFuck, on the other hanct CQRtcnded that the Tribunat has Itberally awarcted exceashw SUBR ®f Rs.3,2©,100/-as compensatlon to the ©lalmante,wh©atie pawite of the deceased, who was un-mwriecj on tie date ofthe a^lctent. ^ tna motor accident elatm Ga®ev^artIs importarrt fe^wt^ie compeosaticm to be awarded by the Courts / Tritaunates^ justandpropercompeRsatJORjnthefaK^andtrfrevriistaNncesQfttw case. 1( shoutel nelther be a meager amourrt of GOEnpeiiaaltia'i, n@r abonanza. » 7) Now, we shall examine as to whettier the cNampensaUen of Rs^,26.1 OQ/- awarded tey th® Tribunat fe just tm^ ^fsiper oompensaHon in the facts and clrcuin^am»8©fthepp^aAe^se. &) The clainnante shoukl not have any griwaffi^ ateottf the assessment of the Income of the deceased by th®Tfiteyiwl al Rs.5,028^- p^r month as the evidanoe ted by them before the Tribunal establi^head the inGome of the deceased to »at®ctent only. '~^^,/' -^^•^^' 9) the Tribunal has been qutte tiberat fri ctedyctlng ordyi^^ the income of the deceased towards his pereonal expenses ttough the deduotion in that behalf eould have been to the •xte(rt of 80% of the income of the deeeased considering thsrt the deoewed en the date of the accident was unmarried and in wiew @f ttie dteta ^ theApex Court in the cases ofSyed BasheerAhanned and tidiws Vs Mohammed Jaineel and another reported In ?M»^ t Supreme Court Gases 228 and Sarta Veniw (Smk) and <ithws Versus Delhi Transport Gorporatlon and aiiother roported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 10) The multipller ofSselectedbyttwTOfeivoa^adsac^wwwt fbundft^wlthGc»n8Merin9tiefeasonin^9lvBnt^ttiefrllsvr^ para 14 of the tmpugned aw^ircl in regard to t»e a@e <rf Wie ^telmarrts. 11) For the foregolng reasons we do noit flnd any 8^»pelor enhancement of ttie eofnpensartion awaFdeel ^f the Trffeynatf. l^ The appeal CTed by (1% appetlantetelahaiarte ^or enhancement of the compensartlon, ttierefore, to Ite^le t& be dismissed and is hereby dtemlssed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge '\