HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH '•^, CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUFTA,C.J;& HON'BLE SHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR/J. Appellants Claimants Mesc. Appeal No. 174 of2006 1 Tejram, S/o Yudhisthir aged about 13yearsOccupation-Student 2 Lakheshwar S/o| Yudhistiir, aged about 11 years, Occupation Student 3 Yudhisthi^S/o Dukalu, aged aboyt 34 years, [Appellant No. 1& 2 being minor on behaif ofthrough their legai guardian father the appellant No. 3] All present R/o - Village- Rikhidadar, Poiice Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund VERSUS Kn'shna Kumar Sharma S/o Rameshwar Sharma, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chjrmiri Dist- Koriya (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina BuiJding, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Misc. Appeal und^r Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act Respondents Non-ciaimants Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, eounsel for the'appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsei for respondent No.2. J II ORDER ^rd (23ro Febmary,2011) !^^^ The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate husband ,and minor sons of deceased Kewra Bai are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.11.2005, passed in ClaimCaseNo.117/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate husband and minor sons of deceased Kewra Bai, by filing a daim petition u'nder Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehjcles Act for her death in the motor accident on 08.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum of Rs.2,87,600/- as compensation along with ihterest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date bf actual payment. 3) Shri Shivendu Pandya, 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 her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,87,600/-only. 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance company on the other hand,supported the award and contended that the compensationof Rs.2,87,600/- ^ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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. !t shoutd neither be a meager amoUnt of compensation, nor a Bonanza. » 6) Now we shail examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,87,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Kewra Bai used to earn Rs.150/- per day by stitching clothes, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Considering that the deceased was stitching clothes'in a small village, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 8) The ciaimants'dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that the husband of the deceased in his evidence before the Tribunal categorically stated that his wife Kewra Bai was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Versus De3hi Transport ^ 4 Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes multipiier of 16 for the age group between 31-35 years. 10) For the foregoing reasons,wedo not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation,therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^ubbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge