^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 30 of2010 1. Chain Singh Verma, s/o Dhauwaram Lodhi, aged about 45 years. 2. Smt. Anusaiya Bai, w/o Chain Singh Verma, aged about 40 years. 3. Smt. Sonia Bai, w/o late Shri Ramesh Verma, aged about 18 years. 4. Ku. Amrita Verma d/o Chain Singh Verma, aged about 18 years. All are residents of village Belgaon, Post Beltara, tahsil Saja, P.S. Khamhariya, distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS Sanat Kumar Jangde, s/o Shri Babulal Jangde, aged about 30 years, r/o village Chikhala, tahsil Berla, P.S. Saj'a, distt. Durg C.G. Owner & Driver of (Vehicle not insured) JVIemo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: . Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for the respondent. Respondents Non-applicant ORDER ISt (31st0ctober,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. , ^ r' -• .A.C. No.30of2010 This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.12.2009, passed in Claim C.ase No.59/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,43,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, parents and sister of deceased Ramesh Verma, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,79,500/- 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 Ramesh Verma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidenton 08.05.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.-07/D/3242 and C.G.-07/D/3243; as the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was not insured wlth any Insurance Company, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants was that of driver-cum-owner of the Tractor-Trolley. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was .<-- sl ,yfSS- sa I -^' ^ ^4'" M.A.C.No.30of2010 worked out to Rs.3,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.39,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,79,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramesh Verma in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,79,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, 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 awarding low compensation of Rs.3,79,500/-. 6) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for respondent Sanat Kumar Jangde, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand contended that in fact the deceased himselfwas negligent in driving the motorcycle and was wholly responsible for the accident. 7) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be ju'st and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nora bonanza. 8) Now, we shall examirie as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,79,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramesh Verma used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason, no cogent and reliable ^ ———""'' •t^*^3i,^^i:*iu-'..^—^ '•;J-caSS?tea.J;-^. .A.C.No.30of2010 evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs. 150/- per day. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 10) The claimants' dependency also, in our opinion, has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the age group between 20-25 years and deceased Ramesh Verma was shown to be 22 years of age in his postmortem report. 12) The Tribunal has liberally awarded substantial amount of Rs.39,500/- under other heads. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge ^ .^L\,^ ,__:_'.,L^_ ^.i.^u^.—.-.„—.—