HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1116 of 2011 1. Jahur Hasan Siddiqi s/o late Ramjan Siddiqi, aged about 46 years, 2. Smt. Shamim Bano w/o Jahur Hasan Siddiqi, aged about41 years, Both are resident of village Navagaon police station Mandir hlasoud, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-appellants Rajendra Kumar Mishra s/o Ramakat, aged about 22 years, r/o E.W.S. 17/2, Housing Colony, Tin Manjil, Chhota Govindpur, district Purvi Singhbhumi, Jamshedpur Jharkhand (Driver of alleged Tanker bearing registration No.C.G.04JA-3893) D.S. Construction Limited First Floor Jaiprakash Complex S.B. of Indore, Telibandha Chowk, Raipur, district RaipurC.G. (Owner of alleged Tanker bearing registration No.C.G.04JA-3893) I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Jenith House, Keshav Rao Khade Marg, Mahataxmi, Mumbai 4000034 through Division Office, Lalganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road, third floor, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of alleged Tanker bearing registration No.C.G.04JA-3893) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act v'^ MAC.No. 1116of2011 Present: Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (16th November, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 2) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Trib.unal') vide award dated 06.09.2011, passed in Claim Case No.131/2011. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased girl Kumari Nagma Siddiqi aged about 15-16 years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 30.01.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,1 1,000/- only. 5) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be -\ ^-y:^\ /^. ^ i '^ifWSE^ I ^CSi&s^ ^ 'v vy M.A.C.No.1116 of 2011 just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Deceased Kumari Nagma Siddiqi was aged about 15-16 years on the date of the accident: She was a student of 10 standard. Though the claimants pleaded that their daughter Kumari Nagma Siddiqi used to earn Rs.200-300/- per day by running a fancy store, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing that the deceased was running any shop at all. 8) Even assuming the notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as 50% of Rs.36,000/- is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses considering that deceased Kumari Nagma Siddiqi on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus 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 SCC 121; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal ,;f^C\ 1 ^,^ M.A.C.No.1116 of 2011 Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation would work 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 and Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/-, which is less than the sum of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do riot find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu