^.^•^. -^"^M. //fs^ \ .I 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-ciaimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 646 of2007 1 Smt. Shanta Bai, aged 23 years, w/o late Ramesh Kumar. 2 Laxman Vishwakarma aged 59 years, s/o Shri Bangali Vishwakarma 3 Smt. Rambha Vishwakarma aged 57 years, w/o Laxman Vishwakarma Alj are resides at village Bhothali tahsil Sarangarh, distt. Raigarh C.G. VERSUS 1 Shri V. Venkateshwar Rao, s/o Shri Tamalayya Rao aged about 30 years, r/o Pullur, Thana Mahilawaran, distt. Krishna (Andhra Pradesh) 2 Smt. P. Jhansilaxmi, w/o Shri Baburao, aged years, r/o D.No. 40- 6-6 Khandari Lane, Revenue Colony, Vijaywada (Andhra Pradesh) 3 National insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisionat Office, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri J.N. Nande, counsel for the appellants. ShriDashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^\ (18tnJuly,2011) ^'.:..i-':^% "^. fc •- • .'; ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Ramesh Kumar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accideot Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.231/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- daimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Ramesh Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutihy of the entire evidence led before it held the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.A.P.-16/TT- 2269 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above flnding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tcibunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses'pf the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.42,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramesh Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fjling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessjng his income at Rs.3,000/- per month; and Rs.36,000/- per annum on!y; in deductsng 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compehsation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should nejther be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramesh Kumar used to earn Rs.1,25,000/- per annum from his agricultural land, the evjdence led in that behalfwas not of clinching nature. In fact, 'rt has come in the claimants' evidence itself that the agricultural land actually belongs to claimant No.2 Laxman Vishwakarma, father of deceased Ramesh Kumar. It appears that deceased Ramesh Kumar was only assisting his father in cultivating the said land. In this state of evidence, we do not flnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting on!y 1/3rd'of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the selection of the multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13) The Tribunal has awarded substantial amount of Rs.42,000/- underother,heads. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of^he compensation awarded by the TribuRal either hlNBP^^' on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge r