HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1000 6f2011 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. Janak Sahu, s/o Kadul Sahu, aged about 43 years, occupation agriculturist. Pushpa Bai, w/o Janakram Sahu aged about 40 years, occupation agriculturist. Suniti Sahu, d/o Janakram Sahu aged about 20 years Sunita Sahu, d/o Janakram Sahu aged about 15 years Applicants No. 4 through natural guardian Janakram Sahu, All resident of Birkona, thana Pipariya, tahsil Kawardha, district Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Kapil Chandravanshi, s/o Ishwar Chandravanshi, aged about 30 years, occupation agriculturist, resident of Sakin Jinda, thana Pipariya, tahsil Kabardha, district Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh) (Owner and driver of the vehicle) Ifko Tokoyo Insurance Company, r/o third floor, shop No.345-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, district Raipur Chhattisgarh. ^- IVIemo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellants. ORDER >th (28'"September,2011) k "^•. ^J/ ':sais'y M.A.C.No. 1000 of 2011 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.50/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.16,86,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sisters of deceased Raju Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) The Tribunal held the Ifco Tokiyo Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.09A/1291, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the persorfal expefises of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,.000/- under .7 ••/• MAC.No. 1000 of 2011 other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Raju Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- only, which ought to have been assessed at Rs.36,000/- as the daily income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.100/-; in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only. 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.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in th'e facts ahd circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants and by deducting only 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency would MAC.No. 1000 of 2011 come to Rs.18,000/- per annum only; as the claimants are parents and sisters of deceased .Raju Sahu, the appropriate multiplier in the case, in our opinion, would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Munlcipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, repori:ed in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation would work out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Raju Sahu in the motor accident, which amount is less than the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10) 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. 11) The appeal* filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge 9^w