^5^^^:;^%^? iBi'R'M?® WffS's'wWjSsiiWS' HIGH ©OURTOF GHHOTTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVQUFTA.GJ. HON'BLESHRI«ANGNATHCHAniDWUU»M Appellants Claimants Misc Apoeal (Cl No. 768 of 2007. 1 Puranjan Slngh Rajput, S/o Bisahu Singh Rajput, aged about 50 years 2 Smt Chandrika Slngh Rajput, W/o Puranjan Singh Rajput, £®edabout 43 yeare Both R/o Purani Basti, Rant Road, Korba, Tehsil & Dlstrtol Korba (CG) Pr^ent R/o Gandhi Chow*, Bramhan Para, Bhatgaon, Pollce Chowfci - Bhatgaon, Tehsil - Belaigsrtl, Distrirt Raipur (CG) Respondents Non-clainmnts VERSUS Subhash Chandra Slngh Gond, S/o Shri Hari Krishna Singh Gond, aged about 32 years, R/o - New Risda, Bhadra Para, Bateo, Disfrfet - Kssba (CG) (Vehtele Driver of Bus) Anish Meman, S/o Abdul Aziz. Meman aged about 38 yeare, R/o OM Bus Stand, Korba, District - Korba (CG) (Vehicle Owner of Bus) The Untted India Insurance Company Umited, through Diyistonal OfRce, Divisional Manager, In front of Kutchery, Krishna Manzil, Ratpur, Tehsil & District - Raipur (CG) (Vehicle Insurer of Bus) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectfaai 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act a=ss£L£s.^asBC=A .1.1. Present : Shri Shiwencfai Pandya, counsel fertt appellants. Smt Indlra Tripathi, counsel Tor respomlente No.1 and 2. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior counsel wtth Smt Mwra Jaiswat, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER <03"lJaiw»Ny,2811) The followlng order of ttie Court was pgBsed by :1^eev Gupta, CJ. This is ctalmarte' appeal for enhancement of the compensertton SMfardaJ by> the Flr^ Addittonal Mohir A<»rdent Ctalms Tribunal, Baloda Bazar,(tor short the Trtbunal') videawafd dated28.(©.%)06,passedin Ctaim Case No.78^)06. 2) As agalnst the compensation of Rs.14,50,000/-, claimed by the appellants/clalmants, unfortunate parents of (tecased ^tt Singh by filing a clalm petitjon under Secfion 1W of the Mol®' Vehteles Act, for his deatti in ttw mcrtor accactent o»»24.03.20 , the Trlbunal awantal a total sum of R8.4,60,600/- e®compensation along wtth interest @ 7% per annum from the dale of flUng of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3} The Trlbunal on aelo setuUnyafttffi eBdwevidence ted befbre K held that ttie eladnnaala' son Ajtt -Sft^h died on aecount of e t^urt^ statabwd by him in the motor accident on 24.03.20( ; the accident occurred due to ttie n^Ugence af the deceased himself and the driver of the-other vehide bus bearing la^stFatlon T ':sa£3- No.GG-12/9818; the extent of negligerree of the bus driverand the deceased motorcycltst was to the extent of 70% amt 30% respectlvely; as the above bus on the date of the asddent wnfc insured with the Unlted India tnsinanee ©ompanyLimitai, and the Insurance Company Gould not ^ablishany breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 70% of the compensation assessed to the dalmants; 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased rt Rs.5,000/- per month. By deducting Rs.2,000/- texrarda the personal-eiqienses of the deceased,the clEnmants' (^eixten^ was assessed at RS.3.00W- per month amd Rs.36,(XXW- per annum. By mult4)lyirg the- annuarf dqiendency of Rs.36,000/- wilh the multipller of 18, the compensatlon wre worked oirt to Rs.6,48,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,OOQ{- under other heads, the total compensation was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,58,000/-. As the driver of the bus was hekt liable ftn- the acchtent to ttw wtent (rf 70% onlythe Tribunal dtrected the insurerof Ite bus to pay 70% of Rs.6,58,000/- i.eRs.4,60,600/- as compensErtlon to the clatmants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest an the above amount of compensatton of Rs.4,6Q,600/- @ 7% per annum from the date offllingofthe claim petlUon tlB the date (rfactuat payment. 5) Shri Shlvendu Pandya, leamed counsel Tor the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not aeeepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceaaed and In assessing his income at Rs.5,(XX)/- per month only; <n dedui^ing Rs.2,000/- per month towards the personal expen^s of the r—- • ( L—..-.- deceasal; in holding that the deceas«l motor^clist also contrtbutwl to the aeGictent to the extent of 30%; and In awa»ding low compenssrtion of Rs.4,60,600/- only. 6) Shri HB Agrawal, leamed Senlor Counsel for r^ponctent No.3, the United India Insurance Gompany Umited, on e other hand submitted that the Tribunal has been qutte liberal in seleoting the htgher multiptier of 18 and inawardlng excesshre compenartton ofRs.4,60,600/-onlytotheclalmants. ' .-. • 7) Smt Indira Tripathi, teamed coun^ for responderts No.1 and 2, the drivwand owner of Uie offending vehiele bus su^orted the award. 8) tn a mcrtor acGident clatm case what is impwtant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shoutel be just and proper compensatlon in the Tacts and clrcumstances of the case. It should nefther be a meager amount of compensatlon, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examlne as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,K),600/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthe facts and ciroumstances ofUie present case. 10) Even assumingthe income ofthedaseasedat Rs.6,000/-per month as plead«t by the olaimante, the daimants'dependeney wouldnot be morelhan Rs.3,(X)0/- per monthand Rs.36,000/- per annum as 50% of ttie income of the deceaaed is requiredto be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court !n the caseof Syed Basheer Miamed imd ottiers Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2809) 2 V^sss^s'sa Supreme Court Cases 228; the claimants are parents of the deceased, appropriate multiptier in the presentcase WCTild be 10 In view of the dtetum of fte Apex Court in the case of Nunidpal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman tyer and another, reported in (2003) 8SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parerts of the deeeased.the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multlptylng the aanual dependency of Rs.36,000/- Mnth the multiplier ef 10, the compensation works out to Rs.3,60,000/-; by adding the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a Wal sum of Rs.3,70,0(X)/-, which is less than Uie amount of Rs.4,60,600/- awareled by the Tribunal. f1) For the foregotng reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensatton awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal flled by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefbre, Is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- 1 ChiefJustice Judge a^ subbu Uto^.-