HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 716 of 2011 1. Balram Sandey s/o Ravilal Sandey, aged about45 years. 2. Smt. Santra Sandey w/o Balram Sandey, aged about 40 years. 3. Minor Himanshu aged about 17 years, 4. Minor Sourabh aged about 15 years, 5. Minor Gourav Kumar aged about 13 years, Appellant No. 3, 4 & 5 through natural guardian father Balram Sandey by caste Satnami all R/o village Madwa, post Mathiya, police station Bilaigarh, tahsil Kasdol, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Rakesh Pandey, aged about 21 years, S/o Brij Bihari Pandey, r/o village Pandi, police station Kutumba, district Aurangabad (Bihar) presently. residing at Ringh road No.2, behind Lukad Petrol Pump Hirapur, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicle bearing registration NO.C.G.04-J/6665) 2. Sukh Mohan Singh Baba s/o Shri B.S. Baba Chandrapur Roadway Company Barkat Plaza, Ring Road No.2, Hirapur, Raipur C.G. (Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-J/6665) •^—^ ^ m i 3. Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-J/6665) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri KN Nande, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (08th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.02.2011, passed in Claim Case No.25/2009. N ^ ;^ J ^' 6) As against the compensation of Rs.86,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and brothers of deceased Devesh Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on-22.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,18,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04/J-6665, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiptier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.6,500/- under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.3,18,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Devesh Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,18,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. •^ 8) Shrj K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,18,500/- only. 9) 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, nora Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,18,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Deceased Devesh Kumar was aged about 20 years on the date of the accident. He was a student of agricultural engineering. The claimants are his parents and brothers. His father, claimant No.1 Balram Sandey was aged about 45 years. As the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 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 as deceased Devesh Kumarwas unmarried on the date of the accident 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. 13) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents and brothers of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal 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 ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15) 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 bu