)‘5 slGH COUT TISGARH BILASPUR H R OF CHHAT on’be hi'i Raeev Gupta, C.J. & on’ble Shri Sunil' Kumar Sinh’a J yarea an another Pll d Vs. Sunil Kumar an another d Fo Considn r eratio - Sum! Kumau Sze Judge HON BLE SH RI JUTICE S RAJEEV GUPTA ost for Judgment : /02/201 0 ‘ P 3 Hl S j H CORAM: Misc. Appeal No. 897 of 2004 JUDGMENT §m ha! N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. » Misc. Appeal No. 897 of 2004 1 Pyarelal S/o Itwari Gadariya, aged about 55 years, Heera Bai, W/o Pyarelal Gadariya, aged 50 years Both are residents of village Lakhasar, Tah'sil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G). Versus RESPONDENTS I 1. Sunil Kumar, s/o Sachdeo Gond, R/o ‘Jail Line, Central Jail Campus, Bilaspur (Driver) Shri J’.S. Ahuluwalia, s/o 'Darbara Singh, .Trade Centre Transport Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (Owner) Oriental Insurance Co., through Branch Manager, Oriental' Insurance Co., Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G). (insurer) (CG). MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION ‘1 73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Subhash Yad‘av, counsel for the appellantsp None for respondents 1 & 2. ‘ Mr.iSudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent no.3” APPELLANTS 2 Misc. Appeal No. 897 of 2004 JUDGMENT (3.02.2010) - Foll‘owing Judgment of the Court was delivered by ; i ‘ ’ Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) The appeHants/Claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.37/2001 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G) vide Awarded dated 02.07.2004. ‘ (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:— The appellants/claimants are the parents of Bhukhan They ifiled al claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs 19 25 000/- for the death of their son . ‘ l i - TBhukhan In the motor accrdent which took place on 24 05 2001 .when<Jeep NoMP26-E/7221 In which the deceased was traveling, met With an accrdent on account of rash and negligent drivmg of the said vehicle by Its driver. ‘ The appellants/Claimants pleaded that the deceased was :aged about 2O years, he was working as a waiter and wasearning Rs 1’00/- per day The claims Tribunal accepted the contentions of the appellants and held that the deceased was earning Rs 100/- ‘per day. However, it held that since the deceased was being paid on daily basis, he must be getting such amount for 25 days éin a " > :month and therefore, he must be earning Rs.25007— per monthiand ‘ iRs.3o,000/- per annum. {By deducting 1/3r" towards perséonai l :expen‘ses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to t ‘ / 3 Misc. Aggeal No. 897 of 2004 Rs.20,000/—. By using multiplier of 12 to the said annual dependency of Rs.20,000/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/—. On this amount, the Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till realization. (3) Mr. subhash Yadav, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the i / . appellants, agued that a low income has been assessed; a lower »,multiplier has been used and as such a low compensation has been awarded. ,(4‘) On thé otherhand Mr. Sudhir AgraWal learned counsel appearing .l J t y ;on behalf oft the Insurance Company/respondent n03 opposed these, I arguments ‘_(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case (6) Admittedly, the claimants. pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.100/— per day as he was working as a Waiter. To prove this fact, they have adduced oral, evidence. The Tribunal has accepted the contentions , ‘of the claimants but it has held that since the deceased was being paid on daily wage baSIs therefore looking to the probabilities of working for ~-.,:‘., a 25 days In a month It has assessed the income of the deceased as ‘ Rs 2500/— per month We do not find any fault in such assessment made u by the Claims Tribunal. o ‘ (7) As far as the deduction is concerned the Tribunal has been quite § \&al~in deducting only 1/3’d of the 1ncome of the deceased towards his \TN \ 4 .v Misc. Appeal N0. 897 of 2004 personal expenses, whereas, it would have gone to the extent of 1/2‘ in view of the‘judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Syed Basheer Ahamed an‘d Others —Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (2009), 2 SCC 225 Wherein it has been held that the general rule regarding deduction from the income of the deceased is 50%, if he is bachelor and one-third if h‘e is married. (8) As faras multiplier is concerned, admittedly, the claimants are parents of the deceased and they were aged about 55 years and 50 years on the date of accident In such a situation the appropriate 51' multiplier would have been 1O In View of the dictum of the Apex Court in H Munici‘ al lCo oration o, Greater Bomba —Vs~ Laxman I er 8a ) 8 SCC 731 whereas the Tribunal has used the a multlpller of 12 In the present case ‘ (9) The law in relation‘to awarding Compensation in accident cases is well settled Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award Just and reasonable" compensation to thegenUine claimants after determining the factum of acoldent as also the factum of , rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle It has i to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be Windfall fo'r the viCtim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensatiOn must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. ' The courtsand ' tribunals have a duty’to weigh the various factors and quantify the " amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend , i upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or , special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing 5 Misc. Appeal No. s97 of 2004 compensation has to be Considered in the background of ”juét" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. iThe expression “just”- denotes equitabiiity, fairness‘ reasonabieness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Hawana and another —Vs- Jasblr Kaur and others (20032 7 SCC 484 and Helen C Rebello (Mrs: and others —Vs- Maharashtra State Road Transgort Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90. ‘(10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope rfor Ienhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the ‘weliants/claimants on account of death of deceased Bhukhan m the motor acetdent i 3(11) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, therefore, is liable; to ‘be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. f Sd/- k / .561 - Chief Justlce "/Sumi Kum $inha1 x gar“ /‘ i 2 xm i i \-7 Judge ’ ,Jmwwig (12) There shall be no orders as to the cost.