HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 665 of 2011 ro ^ Appellant Claimant Smt Kasturi Tiwari, aged about 56 years, Wd/o Late Devidayal Tiwari, Occupation - House-Wife, R/o Shiv Chowk, Kishanpara, Gobra Nayapara, Rajim, Tah & Distt - Raipur (CG) VERSUS '/ -^ ,/r^, Respondents Non-applicants Ravi Tiwari, aged about 48 years, s/o Ramvihor ^Tiwari, occupation Driver, r/o Vill. Duhel, thana Devbhog, DistrictRaipur C.G. Driver of the vehicle Satyanarayan Sarda, occupation owner, r/o Devbhog, distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of the vehicle ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Insurance Co. ofthe vehicle Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (29th June, 2011) .\z '^K w.^' ^-"' The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant Smt. Kasturi Tiwari, widow of deceased Devidayal Tiwari is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.46/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow ofdeceased Devidayal Tiwari by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.02.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- only. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, thecompensation 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. ro -<-,/ ^ps^ /^,^%. "%^ f€..1,. 'l: i %^^^i^, | j '^St^i^ j y f ^xy' . 1. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Deceased Devidayal Tiwari was aged about 66 years on the date of the accident. The sole claimant in the case is his widow Smt. Kasturi Tiwarj, aged about 56 years. Though the elaimant pleaded that the deceased used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from Tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed his income on its own estimate at Rs.5,000/- per month. As there were only two members in the family dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself and his widow/ sole claimant Smt. Kasturi Tiwari, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As the deceased was aged about 66 years, no fault can be found with the selection of multiplier of 5 by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. ^ / c/ ,^^^%te- 'W^m^ ',.- • 1 '11'"' 'r .5 9) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge v subbu / 'c/