/^\ '-SSes^ j ladanlal Smt Triveni Bai, v'/io late Shri Yadav, aged about 35 years Ku Bharati, d/o late Shri Yadav,aged about16 years 3 Bhavesh Kumar, s/o late Shri Madanlal Yaday, aged about 14 years 4 Ku Pinki, d/o late Shri Madanlal Yadsv, aged about 12 years 5 Ku Kavita, d/o late Shri Madanlal Yadav, aged about 08 years Ku Uma, d./o late Shri Madanial Yadav, aged about 06 years 7 Ku Rashmi, d/o late Shri Madanlal Yadav, aged about 03 years Tmeshwari, d/o late Shri Madanlal adav, aged about 03 months Appellants No.2 to 8 are through their natura! guardlan mother Smt Triveni Bai 9 Shri Shivlal S/o Late Shri Prahlad Yadav, aged about 82 years 10 Smt Shyama Bai, w/o Shri Shivla!, aged about 75 years All of appellants No.1 to 10 are r/o village Lal Bahadur Nagar, Paathri, Dewarpara, PS Chichla, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon fe M.A.(C)No.1382 of 2008 1 Shri Uttam Ghosh, s/o Tarun Ghosh, aged sbout 27 years, r/o Khaajra, PS iaahuriya, Distt 24 Pargana (North) Vtfest Bengai, Kolkata (Driver of the TruckNo.VVB-31/2430) 2 Shri Subhankar Poddr, S/o Jaideo Roy, aged about years, r/o Subhash Nagar Media, 24 Pargana (North) West Bengal, Kolkata 743 273 (Owner of the TruckNo.WB-31/2430) 3 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisionai Office : Krishna Complex, 1" Floor, Kuchheri Chowk, Raipur (CG) (Insurer) Present : Shri PR Patankar, counsel forthe appellants. >hri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. 15th Si fol! the Court was passed ^ w.^>?i This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, district Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 05.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.49/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.75,50,000/-, claimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow, mln.or chiidren and parents of deceased Madanlal Yadav by filing a claim petition undsr Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the :"^T'' M.A.(C)No.1382 of 2008 r\ motor accident on 15.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,13,000/- as compensation along with intsrest @ 7.5% per annurn from the date of fiting of the clalm petition til! the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before 'rt heid the United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the offendlng vehicie Truck bearing registration No.WB - 31 /2430 iiable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicie Truck has not fiied any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunat, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Trsbuna! assessed the Income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deductin^ 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.57,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,13,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Madanial Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. ;) Shri PR Patankar, learned counse'i for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the M.A.(C)No.13S2 of 2008 f & ..', clalmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum oniy; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased in place of 1/5 towards his personal expenses; in selecting the Sower multiplier of 16 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- ilv. 7) Shri irath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to vi/arrant enhancement In this appeai. 5) In a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, t'ne ciaimants pleaded that deceased Madanlal Yadav used to earn Rs.600-700/- per day from his Dairy Business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.600-700/- per day. For the reasons best known to the ciaimants, no registration/license of the so calied Dairy of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal. In this siate_ot .A.(C)No.1382 of 2008 evidence, we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,000./- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) Even assuming the claimants' dependency per annum, as argued by learned counsel for the deducting 1/5th of Rs.24,000/- towards the persona the deceased; as deceased Madanlal Yadav was at Rs.19,200/- appellants, by expenses of shown to be 40 years of age in his postmortem report, the appropriate muitiplier in the case would be 15 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhl Transport Cases 121 wherein muitiplier of 15 has been prescribed for ths age group betv/een 36-4-0 years; by multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.19,200/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation would work out to Rs.2,88,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum Rs.3,03,000/- as compensation which is less t'nan the sum of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. padma A(C;No.1382 of 2008 13) The ap le appellants/claimants enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Siable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 4) No order as to costs. Sdf- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaS Judge