HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 229 of 2008 Appellants Claimants Respondents Basant Agrawal s/o Amarchand age 42 years. Smt. Puspa Devi w/o Basant Agrawal aged about 35 years Both are r/o village Sariya, Thana Sariya, Tah. Sanangarh, distt. Raigarh C.G. VERSUS The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pradhan karyalay New India Insurance Company Building 87 Mahatma Gandi Marg Fort Mumbai, through Branch Manager New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Raigarh, Gopi Tokij Road, Raigarh C.G. (Non-applicant No.3) Govind Das s/o Ranjit Das Bangali occupation driver r/o Heeranagar Mitthumuda Raigarh distt. Raigarh C.G. (Non-applicant No.1) Driver Kamal Nath, Sharma Transport Ramniwas Tokij Road Raigarh distt. Raigarh C.G. (Non-applicant No.2) Owner MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri DeepakGupta, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 and 3. .^^53^^ // ^., ^-^ ^\-i^^ ORDER (11th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Vikash Agrawal are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, district Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2007, passed in Claim Case No.26/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.59,10,000/- claimed by » the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Vikash Agrawal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition .till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, 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.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- only. 4) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,48,000/- by ^'B'-;.^ '*^ .^'.^v^ ^ u " selecting the higher multiplier of 17 though the claimants are parents ofthe deceased. 5) 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Vikash Agrawal, though was aged about 19 years, used to earn Rs. 10,000- 12,000/- per month from his partnership in P.C.O. S.T.D. with Naresh Agrawal and from his taxi business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.10,000-12,000/- per month. 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.3,000/- per month. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd 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 Vikash Agrawal was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer ^s Ahamed and others Versus 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 SCC 121. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case o^ 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 of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10) The Tribunal has liberally awarded Rs.40,000/- under other heads. 11) 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. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu