<Zl HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISSON BENCH CORAiVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (0 No. 267 of 2008 ;i Appellants CIaimants 1 Smt Kanta Devi, W/o Late Shri Hariram Agrawaf, aged about 44 years (Mother) 2 Ku Anjana Agrawal, D/o Late Shri Harira Agrawal, aged about 23 years (sister) 3 Ashish Agrawai, S/olate Shri Hariram Agrawal, aged about 19 years (brother) All r/o Navin Nagar, BMY Charoda, Old Bhiiai, Tahsil - Patan, Distt Durg (CG) Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Shyam Singh Baghel, S/o Shiv Singh Baghel, aged about 22 years, GE Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, (CG) Driver - Truck NO.CG-04/E/9987 Surjeet Kaur, S/o Charanjeet Singh Multani, aged about GE Road, Tatibandh, Raipur (CG)Owner of Truck No. CG-04/E/9987 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Akash Ganga Parisar, Supeia, Bhilai, Distt Durg(CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Amrito Das, counset for the appeilants. Shri BN Nande, counsel for respondent No.3. <z;I/ .^:- ^.~. ORDER (27th June, 2011) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.08.2007, passed in Claim CaseNo. 19/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.37,33,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother, sister and brother of deceased Lokesh Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,04,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filingof the ciaim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal found the insurer of the offending vehicie truck bearingregistration No.CG-04 E/9987 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.66,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.66,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.44,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.44,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4.,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.19,500/-, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.5,03,500/-, which was rounded off to Rs.5,04,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.5,04,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of deceased Lokesh ^ '^ Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,04,00/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 4) Shri Amrito Das,leamed counsei for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- only, though the claimants were wholly dependent on the income ofthedeceased. 5) Shri BN Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle truck, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.5,04,000/- as compensation to the claimants, who are mother, sister and brbther of the deceased, who was un-married on the date ofthe accident. 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. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 7) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Theclaimants pleaded that deceased Lokesh Kumar used to earn Rs.5,500/- byworking as Manager in a private hotei 'Trimurti' at Raipur. The claimants further pleaded that he used to earn in additionto his salary of Rs.5,500/-, another Rs.5,000/- as property y\ ^ dealer and by buying andselling old mobile sets. The Tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased as Manager of the 'Trimurti' hotel and therefore, assessed his income at Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.66,000/- per annum. As the evidence about the other income ofthe deceased of Rs.5,000/- per month as property dealer and by buying and selting old mobile sets was not of clinching nature, the same was discarded by the Tribunal. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counse! for the parties and the evidence avaiiable on record about the income of the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,500/- per mpnth and Rs.66,000/- per annum. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deductingoniy 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% ofthe income ofthe deceased considering that the deceased on the date of the accidentwas unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme CourtCases 121. 11)^ The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are mother, sister and brother of the deceased; and the mother in her ^ n J -.< padma cross-examination has admitted that she was still getting her share from the incomeofthe joint family and the joint familywas owning as many as 10 shops in the city of Bhilai. 12) 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. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as tocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ?