ya^t. ^" yl ''S^/Ae a3s:t<^ *^/'' '•-1 HifiH nni 3 e !• ^e3 E S ^ia* ^uf' '• ajfr a^i: ^ ^^ c1-*^ ^ b?^ ^*= S ^ ^ yii i''L HON'BLE SHRi HOM'R! F SHRI I'^ur'r'^ Oiea'£n iSl'ir^k.g ;EV isai of Apoeliants Appiicants 1 Kanhaiya Lai Gupta, aged 72 years, .1) c/n c;hri .11- \5/U 01 !i i Uil^y Gu'Dt Smt- Kadam Bai Gupta, aged 67 years, w/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Guptc Banshi Lal Gupta, aged 47 years, s/o .snn rxannaiya L&', uiupia Smt Shyambai Gupta, aaed 42 ysars, vv/o Shri Banshi Lal Gupta Ku Padmini Gupta, aged 20 years, d/o Shrl Banshi Lai Gupta All r/o Village Ganlyari Thana- Kota, Tah - Ganiyari Distt Bilaspur CG ve.r^^^-^ »' KssDondenf Nori-sopiicsnu 1 Juneja Bus Service (owner) Through ihri Mukesh Kumar Juneja, aged.40 years, s/o Shri Harbansh Juneja, r/o Nirala Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur CG 2 Shri Devi Prasad Bunker aged 50 yrs (Driver) s/o Shri Visheshar Prasad r/o Talapara Biiaspur CG 3 -^The Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, The Orientai insurance Company Ltd., Branch - Bilaspur Opp i-ligh Court Bilaspur CG JViisceilaneQus U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1981 .^J.^SiEistaiiSu.y-Maafi^^S Present: Shri N. Naha Roy, counset forthe appei'ants. Shri Roshan Verma, counsel for respondent N o.1 Shri G.S. Patel, counse! for resDondent No.3. >Eh 'he follovi'inci order of the Court was passed bv The appeilants/ciaimants are seekina enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additlonai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award datec 03.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 22/2002. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs. 16,51,50CV- claimed by the appeilants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents, sister and grand-parents of deceased Vinod Kumar, by fiilng a ctaim petitlon under Section 166 cfthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accldent on 11 .05.2002, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,59,200/- as compensation aiong w/ith Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the clalm petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Th.e Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Vinod Kumar died on account of t'ne injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negl'gent 9rivihg of the of the offending vehide Bus vtKL-6077; as the above offendina vehi <h/ *^ reaistration ius on the date of ,w|j;ila|i°-'T-i: s the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the pslicy conditions, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensatjon to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1 ,800/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,800/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,200/- .per month and Rs.14,400/- per annum. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.14,400/- with the multipiier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,59,200/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,59,200/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vinod Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of cpmpensation of Rs.2,59,200/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri N Naha Roy, learned counsei for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptini the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and In assessiny'his income at Rs.1,800/- per month and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2^9,200/- only. 6) Shri GS Patel, "learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the co.mpensation of Rs.2,59,200/- h,,: ,.J. awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in thls appeai. 7) Shri Roshan Vei-ma, learned counsel for respondent 3.1 Juneja Bus Service, the owner of the bus also supported the iward. : 8) In a motor accident ciaim case, what is important is that, the c-ompensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. <) Now v.'e shal! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Vinod Kumar used to earn Rs.60/- per day as helper on the said bus and was also getting Rs.40/'- per day as daily allowance, the owner of the bus was not examined to establish the income of the deceased to extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault In the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about ihe income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its Qwr! estimate at Rs.60./- perday and Rs,1,800/- per month. 11) The Trlbuna! has be^n qutte libera! in deducttng 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 in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2uus) z BU| 12) The multiplier of 18 setected by the Tribuna! is also on She higher side considerina that the claimants found dependant on the income of the deceased were his parents and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation treater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another; reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 13) For t'ne 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 claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/' claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge suabu