HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Hon'bie Shri Sunil Kumar Slnha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Appeliants CJaimants r^' Respondents Non-dajmants '<... M.A. No. 636/2004 1. Smt. Saroj Tirkey aged 25 years widow of Shri Prakash Tirkey 2. Ku. Neha Tirkey aged 5 years. 3. Anuj Tirkey aged 3 years about. Son and daughter of !ate Shri Prakash Tirkey, monor appeiiant 2 and 3 representing through their mother appeilant No. 1 being naturat guardian. Al! resident of Amalidih, P.S. Telibandha, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Shri 2. Sudarshan Sen son of Kaiyan Sen, Address - Kurmjpara Bemetara P. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Shri Ghanshyam Rathi son of Shri Ramchand Rathi, r/o Ganjpara, Post P.S. Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The New India insurance Company Limited Divlsiona! offjce Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Punjab and Singh Bank, Through - Manager, K.K. Road, Raipur (Owner of vehicle No. CG 04 ZP 1098) 5. Orienta! Insurance Company Limited Through - Branch Manager, Maudahapara, Rajpur (C.G.) (Insurer of vehicie No. CG 04 ZP-1098). NISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ftflOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Mr. MX. Bhaduri, Advocate for the appeliants. Mr. A.L. Sjngraui, appears on behaif of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Suryakant JVJishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. t^. Ora! Order (19.11.2010) FoSiowing order of the Court was passed by Suni! KumarSinha. J. Heard. The appeilants/ciaimants, unfortunate widow and minor chiidren of deceased Prakash Tirkey have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensatlon awarded in C!aim Case No. 69/2003 by the First Additiona! Motor Accldent Claims Tribunai, Raipur vide award dated 18.03.2004. The appellants filed a claim petition under Sectlon 1S8 of the Motor Vehicies Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,25,000/~ for death of deceased Prakash Tlrkey in the rnotor accident, which took place on 12.05.2001, when the Maruti Van bearing reglstration No. CG-04-ZP-1098, which the deceased was driving, was dashed by the offendlng truck bearing registration No. C.G.- 04/G-2137 on account of rash and negiigent driving of the said truck by its driver. The offending truck was insured with the New Sndia insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3). The respondent No. 5/Orienta! Insurance Company Limited was Insurer ofthe Maruti Van. The deceased was working as a driver In the empioyment of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Raipur. He was getting gross salary of Rs. 6,558/~ per month. The Tribuna! he!d the gross salary of Rs.6,558/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of determining compensation. By deducting Rs. 2,1867- as personal expenses of the deceased, the monthiy dependency of the appe!!ants \¥as worked out to Rs. 4,372!-. The annual dependency, therefore, was worked out to Rs. 52,464/- The deceased was aged about 38 years. The Tribuna! considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applted the muitiplier of 12 to the said annuai dependency of Rs. 52,464/- and the compensation was worked out to Rs. 6,29,5S8/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 4,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensatlon was worked out to Rs. 6,33,568/-, which the Tribuna! awarded as compensation to the appeilants for the death of Prakash Tirkey in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the cialm petition tili the date of actual payment. Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, iearned counsel appearing on behaif of the appellants argued that a lower multipiier was used and iow compensation was -s..- e.' awarded to the appellants. He prays for suitabie enhancement in the quantum ofcompensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes these arguments. We have heard iearned counse! for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe claim case. in the present case, the Tribuna! has taken the gross saiary of the deceased as his monthly income for the purpose of computation of compensation, which is not propsr. The income has different connotation in different circumstances. For the purpose of calculation of compensation, the amount of other emoluments than salary which were oniy payable in the !ife tlme ofthe deceased cn account of he belng in service and the amount oftax etc. have to be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased for determining his income for calcujation of compensation, which has not been done in this matter and the gross salary has been taken as Income of the deceased. So far as deduction is concerned, the Tribuna! has deducted usua! 1/3rd, which appears to be genulne In view of the judgrnent of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Sved Basheer Ahamed and Others -Vs- Mofiammed Jameel and Another. (2009j 2 SCC 225. in which, It was he!d that the general ru!e regarding deduction from the income ofthe deceased is 50%, If he is bachelor and one-third if he is married. We further find that the Tribunai has taken note of the fact that the case of the wife of the deceased was under consideration for her compassionate appointment in place of the deceased and iooking to these facts and circumstances; the Tribuna! seSected the muitiplierof 12. The Jaw in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is wel! settled. Under the Motor Vehides Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonab!e" compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as aiso the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the oifending vehicie. it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfail for the victlm. The statutor^ provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weight the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and drcumstances, and attending pecu!lar or specla! features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "jusf compensation which is the plvotal consideration and requires '*s; N» n^ judidous approach. The expression "jusf denotes equitabiiity, fairness, reasonabieness and non-arbitrariness. Piease see State of Harvana and another -Vs- Jasblr Kaur and others (2003} 7 SCC 484 and Heien C. RQbBllo (Mrs.j and others -vs- MahQrQshtra State Road Transport Coroors&on and snother. {1999} 1 SCC 90.) if the amount of Rs. 6,33,568/- is examined in light of the above broad features of the case, it cannot be said that the amount is less or is unreasonabje. For the foregoing reasons, vve da not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the appsliants for the death of deceased Prakash Tirkey in the motor accident. The appeal has no merit, the same is iiable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. No order as to costs. /-^ L_ "^^iR-N- chandrakar Sunil Kumar Sinha | ^ -^ Judge n _ ! ? ^ ! — Vijay