HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH i !1! ':M CORAM: HQN'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Appellants Appiicants ^ IVJisc. ADpeal (C) No.407 of 2006 1 Smt Savitri Devi, Age 32 Wd/o Jai NarayanSharma 1 2 AanandSharma,Age 12 3 KuNirma Sharma, Age 9 4 Ku Seema Sharma, Age 6 No.2 to 4 S/o Jai Narayan Sharma, 2-4 by No. 1 as Guardian ad iitem All R/o Kukripara, Subhasnagar, PS Purani Basti, Raipur VERSUS 1. Dwarpal Age 34 S/o.Gangudas, R/o " Dond6 Kaia PS Dharsiwa Raipur 2. Smt Sandhya Jain, W/o Anil Jain, R/o Vivekanand Nagar PS Kotwalj, Raipur 3 The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Branch Office i Kamti Line Rajnandgaon, by' |DIVI Djv Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jai! Road, Raipur Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehlcles Act Respondents Non-applicants Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsei with Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ;th (25tn February,2011) ^ "r v--^ The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow and minor chiidren of deceased Jai Narayan Sharma are the appellants before us in this appea! for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the 8 Additionat Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 09.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.3/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- claimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Jai Naravan Sharma, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 31.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of aetuai payment. . 3) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- only. 4) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance company on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amountofRs.4,29,000/-ascompensatJon to the claimants. 5) In a motoraccident claim case.what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/TrJbunalsshould bejustand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shoutd neither be a meager' amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 6) Now weshall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal js just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ;of the present case. 7) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Jai Narayan Sharma used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as carpenter / contractor, the evidence led in that behalf was not of ctinching nature. Though the claimants pleaded that ten workers used to work under the deceased, none of them was examined before the Tribunal to establish the above fact. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'evidenceabout the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8) The clajmants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- perannum by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. .-..g -il^-,.. -^ 9) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Jai Narayan Sharma wasshown to be 36 years ofage in his postmortem report and in view of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 10) The Tribunal has liberaily awarded Rs.45,000/- under other heads. 11) 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. 12) The appeal fiied by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge