HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants ./. -»•» Misc. Appeal (0 No. 32 of2008 1. Sona Bai Sahu, W/o Late Kamta Prasad Sahu, aged about 49 years 2. Rajeev Lochan Sahu, S/o Late Kamta Prasad Sahu, aged about32 years ' 3. Ku Namita Sahu, D/o Subchand Sahu, aged about 14 years minor through Guardian Grand mother Sona Bai Sahu All residents ofVillage Kurra, Thana, Dharshiva, District - Raipur (CG) VERSUS Khileshawar Prasad, S/o Mangal Charan.aged about34 years, R/o through Guljar Singh Thakur, S/o Girdhar Singh Thakur, Village Kurra (Urla), Thana - Urla, Distt Raipur (CG) (Driver) Guljar Singh Thakur, S/o Girdhar Singh Thakur.aged about 35 years, R/o village -Kurra, Thana Urla, Distt Raipur(CG) (Owner) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance company Ltd;, Branch Offiee No.2, Chawla' Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) (Insurance Company) MEMORANDUMOFAPPEALUNDERSECTION1730FTHE MOTOR VEHICLESACT Respondents Non-appellants •*ll :-.^' :'.»<" f: \<. Present: Shri Samir Singh,counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 Smt Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (05th May, 2011) The tollowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 40/2007. 2) As against the compensation ofRs.38,76,000/-claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, major son and grand- daughter of deceased Kamta Prasad Satiu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166ofthe MotorVehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,37,000/- as compensationto the claimantsalong with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutinyof the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kamta Prasad Sahu, died on accountof the injuriessustained by him in the motor accident on 05.02.2007; the accidentbcGurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration N6.C.G-04-J/ 6974; as.the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the b ^ V;?^^S'?^!'?^ - 'v i accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,08,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased and multiplying the remaining 2/3 with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,92,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.45,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kamta Prasad Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,37,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,08,000/- only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,37,000/- only. 6) Smt Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.8,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kamta Prasad Sahu, who was aged about 53 years and only 9 years s^rvice was left. .-r.-^' 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.8,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum, as their own witness AW/3 Lakhan Lal Banjare categorically admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination that the deceased, after deduction of income tax, was getting only Rs.1,05,000/- per annum. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1,08,000/- perannum. 10) 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 as major son of the deceased and his grand daughter apparently were not dependent on him. 11) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be lower side as deceased Kamta Prasad Sahu on the date of the accident was aged about 53 years and his service of only l{9years\vas teft. ^ r!l :':-N subbu 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.45,000/- under other heads. 13) 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. —— ^d/T ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge \