HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVLSIOJiBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1098 of2008 Appellants Claimants s..- 1. Smt. Vedbati w/o late Shri Dr. Umesh Sahu, aged about42 years, 2. Manoj s/o late Shri Dr. Umesh Sahu, aged about 21 years, Both are r/o village Chipridih (Patewa), tahsil Rajim, distt. Raipur C.G. Respondents VERSUS 1. Kashi Prasad s/o Ramroop, by caste Tiwari, aged about 40 years, r/o Ganjpara Abhanpur, distt. Raipur C.G. 2. Anil Duggad s/o Rantan Lal Duggad aged about 37 years, r/o Bus Stand Abhanpur, distt. Raipur C.G. 3. The Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office 2, Raipur, RDA Building Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Sunil Sahu and Shri Wasim Miya, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ..J.'JA^'^^&^^ ^,.p<—^--<%^ ^ MAC.No. 1098 of 2008 ftC- ORDER (17th November, 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 10 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.03.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 109/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.34,31,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and mother of deceased Umesh Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 03.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,28,000/- 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 close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Umesh Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.05.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-ZC/1780; as the above 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 the compensation to the claimants. ^ca^' 1 i y ff MAC.No. 1098 of 2008 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.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.48,000/- towards'the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,16,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,28,000/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Umesh Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sunil Sahu and Shri Wasim Miya, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awardjng low compensation of Rs.4,28,0007- only. 7) Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the ^^^ ...^. M.A.C.No.1098 of 2008 ^ compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) In a motor accident 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 circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Umesh Sahu used to earn Rs.1,35,000/- per annum from agriculture and his practice as Ayurvedic Doctor and by running Computer Coaching Centre, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.1,35,000/- per annum. 11) In our opinion, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to be on the lower side. 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.32,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 13) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal too cannot be said to be on the lower side as deceased Umesh Sahu was shown to be 48 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the >'\ l' •^y^' M.A.C.NO. 1098 of 2008 subbu Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 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. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwaf Judge