HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants t Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 652 of 2011 1. Smt. Devki Bai wd/o late Thanwar Sahu, age 45 years, occup. House wife. 2. Rajendra Kumar, s/o late Thanwar Sahu, age 25 years, 3. Lokeshwar Sahu, s/o Khorbahra Ram Sahu, age 22 years. All caste Teli,, r/o vill. Jonda, P.0. Pond, Thana JMawapara Rajim, Tah. Rajim, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Purushottam Kumar Patel, age 23 years, s/o Holuram Patel, r/o B.T.I. Road, Mahasamund, Tah. Mahasamund, distt. Mahasamund C.G. (Non applicant No.1 Driver) 2 Poonamchand Chandrakar, age 28 year, s/o Chamanlal chandrakarm, r/o vil. Kondkera (Sonrid) thana & Tah. . Mahasamund, distt. Mahasamund C.G. (Non applicant.2 Owner) 3 TheNew India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office, Madina Building, Jail Road Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. (Non applicant No.3) Misc. ApDeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehicIe Act Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. &i ^' '.,% ';^ < ^. ^ ^^ € ^ ^ ORDER (27th June, 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) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 7th Additional Motor Accident » Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.07/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs. 16,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/claimants by filing a claim' petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Thanwar Sahu in the motor accident on 25.09.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,75,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the 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.2,75,500/- only. 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. -.^ •4 ^;^yS^':%. '^ ^... t 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,75,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) Deceased Thanwar Sahu, even according to the claimants was aged more than 50 years. He was a Mason by occupation. Claimant No.1 Smt. Devki Bai is his widow, aged about 45 years, whereas claimantNo.2 Rajendra Kumar is his major son, aged about 25 years and must be having his own independent income. Claimant No.3 Lokeshwar Sahu, aged about 23 years is shown to be son of one Khorbahra Ram Sahu. Neither in the impugned award any relationship between deceased Thanwar Sahu and claimant No.3 Lokeshwar Sahu is mentioned nor Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is in a position to state as to how claimant No.3 Lokeshwar Sahu is related to deceased Thanwar Sahu. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Thanwar Sahu used to earn Rs.6,000/- permonth as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to that extenjt. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in 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 as it was only claimant •^\ .^'^^^•.^''^' ^'. .^ ^ k. No.1 Smt. Devki Bai, widow of deceased Thanwar Sahu, who was actually dependent on the income of the deceased. 10) The multiplier of 1 1 selected by the Tribunal alsocannot be found fault with considering that the deceased, even according to the claimants, was aged more than 50 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge