HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR DWI$ION BENCH CQRAMZ HON’BLE $HRI R£ujEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE SUN”. KUMAR SINHA J. Misc. Appeal No. 892 of 2063 Appiicants 1. Smt. Keshar Bai Sonwani, W/o £ate Claimants Charandas Sonwam, aged about 4G years. 2. Ku. Rekha Sonwani, D/o late Charandas Scnwani, aged about 20 years. 3. Roshandas Sonwani, 8/0 late Charandas Sonwanl, aged about 18 years. 4. Ravidas Sonwani, S/o late Charandas Sonwanl, aged about 15 years. 5. Ku. Alka Sonwani, D/o late Charandas Sonwani, aged 13 yrs, appellants n0. 4 & 5 are represented here by legal guardian mother Keshar Bal, all are Rm. Sarkhi Road, Abhanpur. P.S. Abhanpur, & Distt. Raipur. VERSUS Respondents 1. K. Suryanarayan Rao Sfo Surya Rao Non-applicants R/o Karnataka,vAndhra Road wage Co. Bhanpurl, distt. Ralpur (C.G.) 2. Karisankram SID Surya Rab, Vehicle owner RIO Karnataka, Andhra Road wage Co. Bhanpuri, distt. Raipur (CG) 3. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Katchehri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) QI :Z\ MEsc. eaé under Section 1?:5 of Motor Vehicies Act Present : Shri AL. Singraui, ccunsei for the appellants. Nane for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORoER (13m October, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rateev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded’by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal‘) vide award dated 07.05.2003; passed in Claim Case No. 116 of 2002. 2T As against the compensation of Rs.24,00,000!— claimed by I the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Charandas Sonwani, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,06i520/— as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% 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 entite evidence led before it held that deceased Charandas Sonwani died on account of_the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.0&.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.A.P.—12—T/4266; as the above offending vehicle a? Truck on the date of the’Laocident was insured with the Oriental Insurance 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;630i- per month and Rs.91‘560/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.91,560/— towards the personal expenses ef the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.61 ,O40f— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.61,040/- with the multipiier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,93,l520/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,06,520/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Charandas Sonwani in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,06,520f— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appetlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,630/— per month only; in deducting 1/8“ of the income of the deceased towards his persona! l expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding ow compeation of Rs.8,06,520/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3; ~ on the other hand, supported the award and contened that the compensation of Rs.8,06,520f— awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8i 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 he facts and circumstances of the case. lt shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza. ~ ’9’ N we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rst8,06,520/ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present ca. 10) he claimants pleaded that decased Charandas Sonai used to get Rs.9,300/— per month as salary from Madhya Pradesh . Housing Board. The Tribunal has assessed he income of the deceased at Rs.7,63Q/- per month. 11) On due consideration of the breakup of the salary of the deceased as shown in his salary certificate (EXP/8): we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.7,830/- per month and Rs.91 ,56QJ- per annum. 12) The deduction of 1/3“ of the incOme of the deceased towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with in view of the evidence or Awi Keshar Bai Sonwani, widow or the i l ns d t , ) ow — se T e wn t deceased to the effect that during the relevant period they were residing at Abhanpur, district Raipur and her husband, deceased Charandas Sonwani was posted at Biraspur and as such, the deceased was required to travel daily from Raipur to Bllaspur either by train or bus. The deceased as such must be spending daiiy on his travel to and fro from Raipur to Bilaspur‘ 13) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found faultvwith in view of the tact that deceased Charandas Sohwani was 49 years of age on the date of the accident and the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, . ’ reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes muitipiier ot 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 14) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.8,06,520/- awarded by the Tribunal in the year 2003 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 of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants’ dependency by the Tribunai or the multlpiier seiected. t6) The appeai filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, faiis and is hereby dismissed. 17) No order as to costs. " 'l sar— , L I Chief Justice ‘ “I It f F,W.iw ices sniii‘ ;.*" Si i s ,I Sdl— _ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge l_