^SSSss^s.. §c g ^•^^^ 1 'vt3s:f"'~-v g /' i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 481 of 2006 Appellants Applicants 1. Vishnu Agrawal s/o late Munshi aged 41 yrs. 2. Ku. Vishakha d/o Vishnu Agrawal aged 14yrs. 3. Ku. Anshika d/o Vishnu Aarawal aged 12 yrs. . 4. Ku. Anshu d/o Vishnu Agrawal aged 10yrs. 5. Ku. Puja Agrawal, d/o Vishnu 6. A< irawai aged 08 yrs. Araman s/o Vishnu Agrawal, aged 1 yr 2 months. Applicants/ appellant 2 to 6 minor through guardian father Vishnu Agrawal appellant No.1, All R/o New K3iurshipar Sangam Chouk, Bhilai 12, Tahsil & distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Shyam Deo Yadav S/o Rarmashish Yadav R/o Teli Bandha, Raipur, present address: T.R. Roadways, Transport Nagar, BhliaiOS, Tahsil & Distt, Durg (C.G.) (Owner/driver) Divisionai Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Divisional Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Mjscellaneous Appeal u/S 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appeilants. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (04'"January,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the CQmpensation awarded by the 10 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 02 of 2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,22,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Latita Agrawal, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 02.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,24,995/- as compensation to the claimants 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 close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Lalita Agrawal died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 02.03.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration •c'i-'S-. ^s^1'1 No.C.G.04/ZC-4391; as the above offending vehicle Truckon the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3l'd of Rs.80,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.53,333/-, per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.53,333/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,99,995/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,24,995/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased LalitaAgrawal in the motor accident. The Tribunal furtherdirected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,24,995/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dateof actual payment. 5) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.80,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3 of ths income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,24,995/- only. K 6) Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunat has awarded excessive sum of Rs.8,24,995/- as compensation to the claimants. 7) In 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. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation; nor a Bonanza. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,24,995/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The claimants themselves pleaded the income of the deceased at Rs.81,200/- per annum. The copies of the income- tax returns of the deceased produced before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2001-2002; 2002-2003; 2003-2004; and 2004- 2005 established her total income at Rs.78,000/-; Rs.81,500/-; Rs.79,600/-; and Rs.81,200/-. The Tribunal has rightly taken the average income of the deceased for these four years and has rightly assessed her income at Rs.80,000/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. Considering that the husband of the deceased is one of the claimants, we do not find B-; any infirmity in the assessment of the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal. 11) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that the husband of the deceased, namely Vishnu Agrawal was aged about 41 years on the date of the accident and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported i.n (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. , 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation 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/- Ouef Justice Sd/- Kangnath Chaadra&ar Jiidge ,ubbu