HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH l^ CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. -z.,,_ ^^ ADDellants Claimants ': c MJSG. Appeal (0 No. 505 of 2008 1. Smt. Usha Kesh^rwani, W/o Late Ram Babu Kesharwani, aged about SOyears. I 2. AnkitKesharwani,! S/o Late Ram Babu Kesharwani,| aged about 07 years. 3. Ritika Kesharwani, D/o Late Ram Babu Kesharwani,! aged about 05 years. | 4. Ku. Mansi Kesharwani, D/o Late Ram Babu Kesharwani, aged about 1 years. | 5. Smt; Sushila Devi |Kesharwani, W/o Mulchand Kesharwani, aged about SOyears. 6. Ku. Rani Kesharwani, D/oMulchand Kesharwani, aged about 16 years. 7. Ku. Kavita Kesharwani, D/6 Mulchand Kesharwani, aged about 15years. (Appellant all arel minors through Mother Usha Kesharwani) All Resident of behind Hotel Ashish, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg VERSUS Respondents 1. L.K. Reddi, S/o L, Kripa Sindhu, aged about 50 years, R/o Near Ram Mandire, Balaji Nagar Khursipar, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) k, n 2. Vinod Mishra, S/o Ram Sanehi Mishra, aged about unknown, R/o Sector 8, Sadak No. 7, Qtr. No. 2/A, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) 3. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Bhutani Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (11th May, 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 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 120 of 2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,56,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children, mother and sisters of deceased Ram Babu Kesharwani, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,43,000/- 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) Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- only. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- 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 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased. Ram Babu Kesharwani used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month by working as Supervisor in a Transport Company, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above ^^s^ .^ IN»^-«», occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.4,500/- per month. For the reasons best known to the claimants, neither the Proprietor of the said Transport Company nor any other employee of the Company was examined before the Tribunal in that behalf. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month. 8) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Ram Babu Kesharwani was aged about 31 years on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 10) The Tribunal has liberally awarded substantial amount of Rs.35,000/- under other heads. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the 1.^"-! %.. \.- .,..^ subbu assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, thdrefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge