HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. FION’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 297 of 2005 1. 'Abdul Gaffar Khan, Aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri Mohd. Sardar Khan', Caster Muslim 2. Smt Hamida Begum, Aged 52 years, W/o Abdul' Gafar Khan, Caster Muslim 3. Abdul Shabir Khan, Aged about 22 years, S/o Gaffar Khan Ku Fatma Begum, Aged about 2O years, S/o Abdul Gaffar Khan 5. Abdul Kadir Khan, Aged about 18 ryears, S/o Abdul Gaffer All R10 INIe’ar Nayapara Masjld, Nayapara, Raipur, PS Gole Bazar, Raipur, Tahsll & Distt Raipur (CG) Appellants 1 . VERSUS 1. Sudhanshu AgraWal, S/o Shri Narayan Agrawal, Recent House 18/121, New Shanti Nagar, Riapur, Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) Permanent R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG) Vehicle Driver, Vehicle No.MP- 24G3110 Respondents 2, Smt Sweta Agrawal, W/o Sudhanshu Agrawal, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG) Owner of vehicle (Registered Owner) Vehicle No.MP-24G/31 10 3. The New India insurance Co. Ltd., Through : its Manager, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg (CG) Insured Vehicle No.MP-24G/31 1O Misc. APPEAL UNDER sECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHIcLES ACT. 1988 Present: ‘ Shri M.V. Paranjpe, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (07* January, 2011) The folloWing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is clainwants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourteenth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 11.01 .2005, passed in Claim Case No.38/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.28,50,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, brothers and sister of deceased Mohd. Shajid, by filing a claim pdtition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per ann'um from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri M.V. Paranjpe, 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 awarding low compensation of Rs. 223,0001- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3- the New lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand; supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,23,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present Case. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shouid 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleadedthat deceased Mohd. Shajid used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month from his denting—painting work, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, if therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.1 ,50p/— per month. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 113'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in View of the fact that deceased Mohd. Shajid was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer (Kb Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 9) The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in View of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Courtin the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation/ either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefoire, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/— ’ i ' SunilKumar Sinha l g1 i Sdl- VM\ Judgeere Jia. Chief Justice .:/ /’r;\ subbu