£ ^l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH il'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, Claimants Misc.ADpeal'No.641 of 2008 1 Yashoda Bai, W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, aged about 46 years 2 Ku. Sita Yadav, age 17 years 3 Ku. Pushpa Yadav, age 16 years 4 Ku Roopa Yadav, aged 14 years Appellants No.2 to 4 are minor through their mother Yashoda Bai All are R/o Viltage Abhanpur, PS Abhanpur, Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Kundan Singh Thakur, S/o Keshav Singh Thakur, age - 29 years, R/o Shitlapara, Nayapara, Rajim, Distt Raipur 2 Tikeshwar Kore, S/o JM Kore, age - 34 years, R/o Sadar Road, Na'yapara Rajim, Distt Raipur 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office Kachahri Chowk, Raipur ;- Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicfes Act Present : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. ^. <s? ...^" ••^^.m-r Shri Saurabh Sharma, counset for respondent No;3. ORDER ith (14'"February,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.0.2006, passed in Claim Case No.3/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, ciaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother and slsters of deceased Kamlesh Yadav by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.09.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,81,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing 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 that deceased Kamlesh Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.09.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.CG-04- E/0294; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any I breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,0007- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 12,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,56.000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,81,000/- as compensation to the claimants forthe death ofdeceased Kamlesh Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, iearned counse! for the appellants 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.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum only, in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- only. 7) Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand "<-.. •®&t 4 submitted that the claimants couldnot establish the invoivement of the vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited and the same is evident from the fact that in the First Information Report lodged by AW/2 Laxmanprasad, the on!y eyewitness examined by the claimants before the Tribunal, it was categoricaiiy mentioned that some unknown vehicle dashed the deceased resulting in his death. 8) !n 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 ofthe case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kamlesh Yadav used to earn Rs.100/- per day by working as Hamal/Cooiie, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence. about the income of-thE. deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting oniy 1/3 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^ "...N. %.- ^ ^i ? Kamlesh Yadav on the date of the accident was unmarried and in viewofthe dictumofthe Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in $2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 12) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in vlew of the fact that the claimants are mother and sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs.25,000/- under other heads. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensatlon either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplier selected. 14) The appeat filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma