HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJVISSON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appeilants CIaimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc AppeaS (C) No. 434 of 2010 1. Smt. Biro Kaur wd/o Kartar Singh, age 41 years 2. Gurmit Singh s/o Makhan Singh, age 36, both R/o near Baba Baiak Nath Mandir, zone 2, Khursipar, Bhilai district Durg. VERSUS 1 Jasbir Singh s/o Darshan Singh, age r/o Sector 5, Cross Street, Q. No. 19/F, Bhilai, district Durg. Owner ofvehicle No.C.G.04/T/0970 2 Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Akash Ganga Comptex, Supela, Bhilai, district Durg. Insurer of vehicie no.C.G./04/T/0970 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehIdesAet Present : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER »th (12mAugust,2011) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims .--f^^N '-^t, ^>^ 'X fiL, ^,. I~iii^3y MACNo.434 of 2010 c;. Tribunai, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No.01/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,65,000/- claimed by the appeliants/claimants, unfortunate mother and uncle of deceased Balvinder Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 28.02.2008, the Tribuna! awarded a totalsum of Rs.2,16,420/- 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 ied before it hetd that deceased Balvinder Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.02.2008 involving Minidoor bearing registration No.CG-04T/C/0970; as the above Minidoor on the date of the accident was insured with the Nationai 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.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/- per annum. By multiplying the above amount of Rs.39,600/- with the multiptier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,14,800/-. By deducting 60% of the above amount towards the personal expenses of the -:^^:^ •^;- /-:'";! i I iv....^g^ 1 -•^y^ ^ MACNo.434 of 2010 c,: deceased, the Tribunal assessed the total amount towards loss of dependency at Rs.2,05,920/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,16,420/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Balvinder Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,16,420/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/- per annum, it has erred in deducting 60% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,16,420/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Mjnidoor on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,16,420/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ina motor accident ciaim 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. •^c^^ .^•, ^ MACNo.434 of 2010 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,16,420/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Deceased Balvinder Singh was aged about 26 years on the date of the accident. He was a driver by occupation. The claimants are his mother aged about 41 years and uncle aged about 36 years. It has come in the evidence of claimant No.1 Smt. Biro Kaur, mother of deceased Balvinder Singh that she was residing separateiy in Punjab whereas the deceased was working at Bhilai and was residing with his uncle ctaimant No.2 Gurmit Singh. The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/- per annum as the claimants themselves pteaded and proved the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3,300/- per month only. In the above-mentioned peculiar facts of the case, the deduction of 60% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipai Corporation of Greater 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. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunat. ^w MACNo.434 of 2010 nimmi 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 Justice SdJ- R.N. Chandrakar Judge