W“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVlSlON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. AQQeal (C) No. 151 1 of 2008 AQQeIIants 1. Meena Bai @ Sunder Bai aged Claimants about 45 years, w/o Shri Batoo La! Banjare, r/o village Jagdafla, Champa, tehsif Champa, district Janjgir, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajesh aged about 16 years, s/o Shri Batoo Lal Banjare, r/o village Jagdalla, Champa, tehsil Champa, district Janjgir, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Anita aged about 13 years, s/o Shri Batoo Lai Banjare, r/o viilage Jagdaiia, Champa, tehsit Champa, district Janjgir, Chhattisgarh‘ VERSUS esgondents 1. Heera Lai Patei aged about 22 years, s/o Shri Puniram Patei, r/o village Rewapara, poiice Station Urga, tehsii and district Korab Chhattisgarh (driver) Non-applicant No.1. 2. Ramviiash Tiwari, s/o Ramgopal Tiwari, r/o Subhas Chowk, Janjgir, tehsit Janjgir, district Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner) Non—appticant No.2. 3. Oriental insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Division Office, Gitanjali Bhawan, Old Bus Stand, Korba Tehsil and district R 2 v ,7”) MAC. No. 1511 of2003 x Korba Chhattisgarh (insurer) "Non-applicant No.3. Aggeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas and Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, counsel for the appeHants. Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, counsel for respondent No.1 . Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (26th September, 201 1) 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 31 .072008, passed in Claim Case No.273/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.61 ,90,000/~ claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, brother and sister of deceased Ravi Kumar Banjare by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicie Hywa-Truck bearing registration No.C.G.11 3 /' (‘ <1.“ ’ Zy M.A.C. No. 1511 of 2008 AB/0270, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicie Hywa-Truck has not flied any appeai against the impugned award chalienging the above hnding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/— per annum. By deducting 2/3“ of Rs.36,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,04,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.21,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ravi Kumar Banjare in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,25,000l— @ 7% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas and Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 2/3r" of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,25,000/— only. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the g~kss v 4 M.A.C. No. 1511 of 2008 insurer of the offending vehicle Hywa-Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Heera Lal Patel, the driver of the offending vehicte Hywa-Truck also supported the award. 9) 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 12) Even assuming the dependency of the claimants at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, as the original claimants were parents, brother and sister of deceased Ravi Kumar Banjare, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay mae—x s‘ subbu 5 M.A.C. No‘ 1511 of 2008 Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works 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 become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/—, which is less than the sum of Rs.2,25,000/— awarded by the Tribunal. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/— Chief Justice N‘K‘ Agrawal