HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 707 of 2011. Appellants Claimants c. Respondents Gopal Prasad Choudhry s/o late Ramawtar Choudry, aged 55 years. Smt. Dewanti Bai w/o Gopal Prasad Choudhry, age 50 yrs, occup. House wife. Both R/o vill. Dokda, Tahsil Kansabel, distt. Jaspur C.G. VERSUS Roop Singh Rathiya s/o S.S. Rathiya age 45 years, occup. Business Bus Operator r/o Gala, post Gala Tahsil Pathalgaon distt. Jashpur C.G. (Non Applicant No.1 Owner) Sitaram @ Ramkumar Chouhan, s/o Devcharan Chuhan, age 54 years r/o vill. Lmdand Thana & Tah. Kansabel, distt. Jashpur C.G. (Non Applicant No.2 Driver) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Office, Raigarh, distt. Raigarh C.G. (Non Applicant No.3) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (18tnJu!y,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur at Kunkuri (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.24/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.66,06,690/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Anil Choudhry, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,18,819/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,18,819/- only though the appellants/ claimants were wholiy dependent on their son deceased Anil Choudhary. 5) 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 should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. ,< (./ 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,18,819/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) As the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them at Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal on its own estimate assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 9) The Tribuna! has been quite libera! jn deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Anil Choudhary 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 Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 10) The multiplier of 1 1 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer ancf another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held 4 that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appedants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summaril Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu