£\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Applicants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal No. 1073 of 2005 1. Mohd. Hayat Sheikh, s/o late Abdul Rajjak, age 50 yrs. 2. Amina Sheikh, d/o Mohhamad Hayat, age 26 years, 3. Zarina Sheikh, d/o Mohhamad Hayat, age 24 years, 4. Shabnam Sheikh, s/o Mohhamad Hayat, age 22 years, All are r/o village Pacheda, P.S. Abhanpur, tah. & distt. Raipur.C.G. VERSUS 1 Ram Swarsjp Sharma, s/o Late RN Sharma, R/o Village Kukera, PO Manhora, PS Dharsiwa, district Raipur 2 The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., through B.M. Branch OfRce, No 1, Kutchahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. *i IV!iscelianeojJs_AB£iealjinderSection 173 of IVIotor Vehicles Act Present : Shri AL Singraul, counsel for the appellants. Shri AK Athaley, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER >nd (22na September,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ,,>S>-i'ls;tSi>^^ _^-^'-^ 'lfe'W''"'' ' ^ MANo. 1073 of 2005 This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2005, passed in Claim Case No.47/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,10,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate father and sisters of deceased Mohammad Akbar by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.08.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 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 Mohammad Akbar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.08.2003 involving Maruti Van bearing registration No.CG-04-ZD/4328; as the above Maruti Van on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above Maruti Van has not filed any appeal challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal the same now have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deductinj /.-.4.1^ ^ 1'T?:^ftl~.- ^•-;. ti' >-^sv MA.No. 1073 of 2005 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,18,000/-,as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mohammad Akbar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AL Singraul, 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 assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- only. 7) Shri AK Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the insurer of the Maruti Van liable to pay compensation to the claimants as deceased Mohammad Akbar himself was driving the Maruti Van at the time of the accident and was solely responsible for the accident. 8) 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 .^ ^t M.A.NO. 1073 of 2005 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.2,18,000/- 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 Mohammad Akbar used to earn Rs.3,500/- per month as Driver and was also getting daily allowance of Rs.50/- per day, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the above extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- perannum. 11) 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 considering that deceased Mohammad Akbar on the date of the accident was uhmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs 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 Supreme Court Cases 121 . 12) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are father and sisters of deceased Mohammad Akbar and in view of the dictum of the Aoe^ ^;-^ '...l: .^i;;'. "vy• MA.No. 1073 of 2005 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. 13) 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge