^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal fCl No. 1425 of2009 Appellants Claimants I" " ' ^. Respondents Om Shrivastava, Son of Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 4 years, through his natural guardianmother Ritu Shrivastava, Widow of Late Shiv Kumar Shrivastva Ritu Shrivastava, Widow of Late Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 27 years Ratan Kumar Shrivastva, son of Harinarayan Shrivastava, aged about 67 years Sumitra Devi Shrivastava, wife of Ratan Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 60 years All are residents of near Nirmala School Chikhlakasa, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) VERSUS Daniram Kanwar, son of Parasram Kanwar, aged about 38 yers, resident of village Uraidabri, Police Station Chichola, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver of vehicle) Jaspal Singh Bhatiya son of Late Khajan Singh Bhatiya, aged about 50 yers, resident of Bagnadi, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Owner of vehicle) MAC.No. 1425 of 2009 uo 3 National Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (11ln0ctober,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.70,28,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.11 .2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,56,880/- 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 Shiv Kumar Shrivastava died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on x •- %^-'^(vy^^ N M.A.C.No.1425of2009 u\ v- ^NNNNB 19.11.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG04/G-2902; as the above offending vehicle Truckon the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurarice 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 respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.7,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.4,666/- per month and Rs.55,992/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.55,992/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,39,880/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- underother heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,56,880/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shiv Kumar Shrivastava in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,56,880/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 6) Shri Abhishek Sharma, 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 M.A.C.No.1425of2009 \^ assessing his income at Rs.7,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,56,880/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.8,56,880/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,56,880/- 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 Shiv Kumar Shrivastava was getting salary of Rs.7,000/- per month by working as Accountant in a Private Institution - Yuganthar Education Society, Rajnandgaon and he was also getting additional sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by working as part-time Accountant in different firms, the evidence led by the claimants about his working as part-time Accountant was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, accepting the claimants' plea that deceased Shiv Kumar Shrivastava was getting salary of M.A.C.No.1425of2009 \A^ Rs.7,000/- per month from Yuganthar Education Society, assessed his income at Rs.7,000/- per month. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record about the income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or infirmity in assessing the income ofthe deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, his parents, widow and son also cannot be said to be on the lower side. 14) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.8,56,880/- considering the nature of the occupation/ profession of the deceased and the element of uncertainty about his occupation/ profession, we are satisfied, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 15) For the foregoing. reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^?