HIGH COITRT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR fl5 Coram: Hpn'ble Shri Rajeey Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri SunU KumarSjnha, J. M.A. (Cl No. 417 of 2007 Appellant Non-Applicant No.3 Respondents The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai, through: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Raigarh, Distt. Raaigarh (CG) Versus 1. Sunderlal S/o Girja Ram, aged about 45 years, 2. Rajkumari W/o Sunderlal, aged about 42 years, 3. Rishi Kumari widow Deepak, aged about 22 years, 4. Om Kumari widow Deepak , aged about 21 years, 5. Bhuneshwari D/o. Deepak Kumar, aged about 04 years, No. 5 Bhuneshwari through mother Rishi Kumari widow Deepak All Caste Patel, P.0. 85 R/o. Sendripali, P.S. Bhupdeopur, Tah. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Applicants No. 1 to 5) 6. Keshdhar Paul S/o. Ramdas Paul, aged about 30 years, R/o. village Nataipur, Distt. Bhadoyi (U.P.) Motor No. N.L. Ol-A-7208 (Truck driverj (Non-Applicant No.ll 7. Sunil Agrawal S/o Gopal Agrawal, aged about 39 years, P.0. R/o. Sunil Transport Seryice- 75/B Amar Mahal Tilak Nagar Chambur Mumbai (M.H.) (Motor Owner) fNon-AiipUcant No.2) (Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988) Appearance: Shri Dashrath Gupta, Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Comapany. Shri J.A. Lohani, Counsel for respondent No.l to 5/claimants. None for respondent No. 6 8s 7. ^l."i %'5''..Sfc, B' ^^^-t"^^'^ ^ M.A.('ONo.417of2007 JUDGMENT .02.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J. (1) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 30til October, 2006 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 50/2006. (2) The claimants are the parents, 2 widows and a minor daughter of deceased Deepak Kumar, who died in the motor accident on 24.8.2005, when his motorcycle, on which, he was traveling, was dashed by the offending truck (tanker) bearing registration No. N.L. -Ol-A-7208. (3) The claimants filed a Claim Petition, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.9,13,000/- on account of death of the deceased in the said accident pleading that the deceased was a tractor driver and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. (4) The owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. However, the appellant/Insurance Company contested the claim by taking the plea of contributory negligence. It also challenged the quantum claimed in the Claim Petition. (5) The Insurance Company was granted pennission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (6) The claimants examined Sunderlal Patel, claimant No.l (AW-1) and Pilababu (AW-2) in support of their Claim Petition, whereas, the Insurance Company, did not examine any witness in rebuttal. ^. M.A.CONo. 417 of2007 (7) The Claims Tribunal, while rejecting the plea of contributory negligence, recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker by its driver. It further determined that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 17 to the said annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,08,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- on account of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased in the hospital when he was alive, and for transportation of the dead body to the village. It also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.30,000/- under the other heads and thus, a total sum of Rs.4,48,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization. (8) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He argued that a high incorae was assessed and a higher multiplier has been used. (9) On the other hand, Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (10) We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. ^t'F"^ M.A.(C)No. 417 of2007 (11) Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a tractor driver, but, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. It comes in the evidence of Sunderlal Patel (AW-1, father ofthe deceased) that he was having a tractor, which was being used for agriculture purpose. He admitted in his evidence that he was not giving cash amount to his son as salary for driving the tractor. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that it was not established that, in fact, the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, on its own estimate, the Tribunal assessed that since the deceased was contributing to the family by driving the tractor, therefore, his income can be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month whichis usually paid to an employed tractor driver. Such finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be fault with. Assessment ofincome ofRs.3,000/- per month for the work of a tractor driver appears to be quite reasonable. (12) So far as multiplier is concerned, the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be a higher multiplier in the facts and circumstances of the case when the deceased was aged about 24 years and his 2 widows were aged about 22 years 8s 21 years and he was also having a niinor daughter of about 4 years along with parents who were aged about 45 years 8s 42 years. (13) The law in relation to awardingcompensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be bome in inind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutoiy provisions clearly Y ^^.s-s^^S ^s-s-t!, asa8!°sa"Ja s^ M.A.('C')No.417of2007 con'imunicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Hari/ana and another -Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others 12003] 7 SCC 4S4 and ffelen C. Rebello fMrs.) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Coroora.tion and another, f19991 1 SCC 90. (14) We have examined the case with reference to the above legal position also and we are satisfied that a just and proper compensation has been awarded to the claimants and no interference is required in this appeal. (15) The appeal has no inerit, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (16) Nocost(s). —- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge vatti