^^•5, '"%..'"• ^. ^-....^ ^ 3, ''VSS-'"^ r, %-^_ Vd^.. ""Sssaast'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 37 of 2008 Appellants Respondents 1. Smt. Sarita Purohit, aged 27 years, wd/o late Naresh Chandra Purohit, occupation house wife. 2. Minor Sujal Kumar Purohit, aged about 1 year and 6 months, s/o late Naresh Chandra Purohit, represented through his natural guardian mother Smt. Sarita Purohit. 3. Vinod Kumar Purohit, aged about 55 years, s/o late Niladri Purohit. 4. Smt. Meenoshree Pruohit, aged about 50 years, w/o Vinod Kumar Purohit, 5. Smt. Premlata Purohit, aged about 80 years, wd/o late Niladri Purohit, All r/o village Kishanpur, P.S. Pithora, tahsil and district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS 1. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, aged 46 years, s/o Sarkar Tiwari, r/o village Kishanpur, P.S. Pithora, tahsil and district Mahasamund C.G. 2. Pitambar, aged about 46 years, s/o Maniram Dadsena, r/o village Pithora, P.S. Pithora, tahsil and district Mahasamund C.G. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, district RaipurC.G. 4. Amarnath Mahto, aged about 34 '"-< '^.. •;;'& » years, s/o Jadu Mahto, r/o Andal, P.S. Andal Bazar, district Verdhman (W.B.) 5. Ramkrishna Shukla, s/o Shri S.N. Shukla, r/o Shukla Colony, Abhanpur, district Raipur C.G. 6. The New India Insurance Company Limited, second floor, R.D.A. Building Bajrang Market, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. Memo ofappeal underSection 173 ofthe tUIotor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.6. ORDER (26th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.10.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.63,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son, parents and grandmother of deceased Naresh Chandra Purohit by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,94,000/- 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 Naresh Chandra Purohit died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.10.2005; theaccident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. Truck bearing registration No.CG-04G/0375 and Marshall Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.06/9199; as the above Truck and Marshall Jeep on the date of the accident were insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company Limited, respectively and the Insurance Companies could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Companies were liable to pay 50% each of the compensation "-^,.-' assessed to the claimants. 4) As the insurers of the above Truck and Marshall Jeep have not filed any appeal against the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.62,000/- under other heads, the \: ';S.-:^2t/ Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,94,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Naresh Chandra Purohit in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,94,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, 6) Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,94,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited and Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.6, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurers of Marshall Jeep and Truck, respectively, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. • 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 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.4,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Naresh Chandra Purohit used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by running medical store, the .evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. It has come in the evidence of claimant No.1 Smt. Sarita Purohit and claimant No.3 Vinod Kumar Purohit, the widow and father of deceased Naresh Chandra Purohit that the medical store run by the . deceased was ofjoint family business; the medical store is being run by the brother of the deceased even after his death though in the changed name. As such, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, in our opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 11) 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, as of the fiveclaimants only claimant No.1 Smt. Sarita Purohit and claimant No.2 Sujal Kumar Purohit, widow and son of the deceased were wholly dependent on the income ofthe deceased. 12) The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as deceased Naresh Chandra Purohit was aged about 31-32 y&ars on the date of the accident and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 subbu prescribes the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31-35 years. 13) The Tribunal has liberally awarded substantive amount of Rs.62,000/- under other heads. 14) 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. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge