\JV',u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 811 of2008 1. Smt. Kamala Sirmor, w/o Yogendra, Sirmor, aged about46 yrs. 2. Yogendra Kumar Sirmor, s/o late Duram Singh Sirmor, aged about 47 yrs. 3. Ku. Vandana Sirmor d/o Yogendra Kumar Sirmor, aged about 18 yrs. 4. Ku. Vinita Sirmor d/o Yogendra Kumar Sirm.or, aged about 16 yrs. Appellant no. 4 is represented by legal guardian father Yogendra Kumar Sirmor. All R/o Handipara (near Rajnandgaon Bada), P.S. Azad Chowk, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Sushant Dutta s/o Pulin Dutta r/o Bande, 109, P.S. Bande, distt. Kanker C.G., Present address Jagadalpur Dharampura (House Narendra Sahu), P.S. Patharaguda, City Kotawali, Jagadalpur, C.G. 2. Tarachand Chandak, s/o Khemraj Chandak, r/o Tongpal Main Road, P.S. Tongpal, dist. Dantewada, C.G. 3 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kutchhery Chowk, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. /i?^ 1 I '^fe^ll 1 '^..'%.,yi "^;^^; v^ Present: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (27th June, 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.01.2007, passed in Claim Case No.26/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.47,85,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sisters of deceased Tikendra Sirmor by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.04.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,94,200/- 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 the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.18/ZC-0224 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. By deducting Rs.1,300/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,700/- per month and Rs.32,400/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of ^^-. -'^ 1 \A^ Rs.32,400/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,83,200/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.11,0007- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,94,200/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Tikendra Sirmor in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,94,200/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,94,200/- only as the claimants were wholly dependent on the income ofthe deceased for their survival. 5) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on theother hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded an excessive amount of Rs.5,94,200/- as compensation to the claimants who are parents and sisters of the deceased who was unmarried on the date of the accident. 6) 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. %.;." A \^ 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,94,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Tikendra Sirmor, used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month by working as Engineer in a private concern namely Bhajrang Power and Ispat Limited. As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 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, as the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer 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)68cci21. 10) The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731. S-... '"\ \A:^ 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 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 Justke nimmi Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge