.';- \\ Shanti Bai Nishad, Wd/o Late Kamal Narayan, Nishad @ Kamal Kewat, aged about 32 years Rahadi Nishad, aged 17 years, S/o Late Kamai Narayan Nishad @ Kamal Kewat No.2 minor through naturai guardian appellant No.1 Soth resident of village - Pandarbhata, PS Dharseeva, District - Raipur (CG) Shiv Khakha @ Shivram 'Khakha S/o Patras Khakha @ Tara Khakha, R/o Ayodhyapuri, Jamnlpali, Jalgaon, Poiice Station - Darri, District Korba (CG) Smt Jamuna Singh aged years, resident of Babupara, PS Ambikapur, Ambikapur (CG) The Orientai Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch IVIanager, iranch Office - Madina Buildlng Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Motor VehicSes Ac-t Present : Shri R Pradhan, counseiforthe appellants. None for respondent No.1 though seryed. Shri Sanjee'/ Verma, counsel for respondeot No.2. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. 1 ..yasaa^ .„? '^i.. '•^^. HSi c^ The following order of the Court wss passed This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 13 Additlona! Motor Accldent Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the, Tribunai') vide award dated 31.07.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No.26/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/-, claimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow and son of deceased Kamal Narayan Nishad by fiiing a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.12.2003, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum of Rs.3,78,000/- as compsnsation to t'ne daimants aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tiil the date of 3) Shri R Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum only; in selecting the iower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,78,0007- only. 4) "Shri Shailendra Sharma; learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand supportsd the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. s^". '"VK. 9/ @ 5) Shri Sanjeev Verma, learned courtsel for respondent No.2, the owner ofthe offending vehicle Bus also supported the award. 6) 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. !t shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 7} Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. out The claimants cannot have any iegitimate grievance about assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per and Rs.30,000/- per annum as the claimants themselves produced salary certificate of the deceased before the Tribunal established the salary of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month only. 9) The ciaimants' dependency also has been rightiy assessed by the Trlbunai by deducting the usual 1/3 of Rs.30,000/- per annum towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10), The muitiplier of 16 seiected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with in viev/ of the fact that deceased Kamal Narayan Nishsd on the date of the accident was 35 years of age and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verraa (Smt) reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, prescribes multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 -35 years. 4 s 11) The Tribunal has been liberal in awarding substantiai amount of Rs.58,000/- under other heads. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 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. J» Sd/- Chief Justice s&'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma