HIGHCO^UR^OE^HHat^lSG^RH^^ DlVlSlQNBENiCl-1; :COR^^:.'^0'N!'BtE-lSM^iii)EE^^U131^^. &,;•.::: ..^^ HON'Bl.E^MSISRiNGNAtMj^^NflDRAK^ Apbellants Claimants .-^- ResBio'rKfeiifs IVIisc.,Ai»Deal3fe N©;a'7'16f^009. 1. l^waram CHoudhary, sfo Teekaram ChoudHary^^ige '4.4 yeare 2. StTit; Hareibiaj^^ C^ Rewaram Cl-iyudhary, age43years 3 Bhojram CKoudharyt s/o Rewaram Ghoudliary, age'ITyears i THrQugh natural iguardian Rewaram ,,'(^pydhary;,;;;:..^:;;^'l::,;.^,.^' All r/pvillage|Sona§il|i,thana PithOra disft. Mal'iasamuhd C.Q. 3 |Si|||Elg|gl|iai|^Qi?JirBi|sil^|[ai,!l:ag^35!: ^;years.].?f/o-(l|»j^|1VI|ihatl,'.Sa!dar'BazaF,- Baii'akpuF,clistt.2i4-'^>ai'gaiKiTK61k8ta, ;vvB..:.:,1 ':^l. :;:''r:'' - (NQn appljcantNo.1) ©ilip^djtya, §/pilate^Devenclranatl') Adjtya, r/o ^/jllag^,! .^poSK & | ttlana ©ORa|pur,"Clj^.-24, ^ Bengal,13Hiii30Cle'743235 (NOII applicai'rtNo.2) %e.aNev JtB|tia?tn^yrance<^m^^ ^.,]|Ko|!<S1at|tlTrQ|ugt^BFar>6t'i|£ffftce, ^ iJ%act, ^Madjn|a;Builclirig,?Rsiipur G.@&1'.''^;':H;^ (NonapplieantNo.3) Ao^al tjnderySectiongl?7aasi:ahejMibtoi'WehicIe"i^ct>? SinH:i:StFij|^ii^g^Sva|i@0i.ijligl!;for|ttieia|3^1|;Eii3ts. Sh'n^oural3h^BgFiT]ia,^(S©Hi|i^:^r':F^gE(ndent:^ No^ %:"Tcl^%:®'^K"^^ '^!^—.-::-- ../ .-.,i11 A ORDER (26tl'July,2011) The fbllowing order of the Court was passed by RajeeVGupta,C.J. TMe unfortunate parents and younger brother ofdeceased Bhuneshwar Choudhary are the appellants before us in this appeal fbr enhancement of Ihe compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Clairns Tribuhal, Mahasamund (fbr short 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 03.10.2008, passedin Claim Gase N0.156/2007. 2) As against theGompensationof Rs.26,50,000/- claimed:by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Bhuneshwar ChQuclhary, by filing a claim petitiyriuriderSeetion166of1MSMGitorVghielesAct,fbrhisdeath in the motoracGidenton 07.11.2007, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,28,400/- as compensation aiongwith interest@6% per annym frdm the dateoffiling of thie claim petition till the date QfactUal payment. 3) The Tribunal on a clpsescrutiny Qf the entire evidenceled befbre it held that deceased Bhuneshwar Choudhary died on aeepuntoftheinjuriessustainedbyhiminthembtoraccidentoni 07.11.2007; the accident occurred due, to rash and negligent; driving of the driver of tbe offendingivehicleTruckbearingi registration NQ.WB-41-B/5§6'7; as the Sabove offeinding vehiclej Truck on the date of the a^ciderit was in^ured with the Ngw India j "\ : . •• ; : •• : ' ;^:.'^:K •...:'•.', .: ^'':'. ',..'•:.••: :\^:M: Ingurance Compahy Limite^ aiWthe insuranc®eompahy Coi.ild ;};g^.;^i, m •^'••„?. not establish any breaeh of the poljcyGonditions.thelnsy^ pompanywasliabletp.payGornperTsatiQt'itQtheclaimants. 4) As the respondents have not filej:! any aRpeallagainst^he award, the aboye findihgs reeorded'by Ihe Tnbunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed ttle income of the deceasecl at Rs.6,800/- per month. By deductihg 50% of the iheome of the ideeeased tbwards his p^rsonat e^ ^ep^i^eney was assessed at Rs.3,400/- per m |RsM,80@/- per^nnum. Bymultiplyingtheannualdependencyof iRs.4Q,80Q/- vvith I^e multip^^ compensation was vvOFkejd ^ut to l^.a,26,4.00/-.^^^^^^ ^ Rs;Z;OQp/-;towards;ifiin§i^l^|3ensesK!tlieiTribunalawa^ totalsumof 1^.^28,^30/1^1 c@iTlpensatioht6the^ the de^th of clec^ased Bhuneshvrar ChoUdhary in the motor accident. TheTribunalfurtherdirectedpayrnentofinterestonthe above arhount of comperisation pf Rs.3,28.400/- @ 6% per annum from the date offiling oftheelaim petition till the date^^^^ ^ctual payment. 6) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, I^Fned coynsetfor the appellar^ vehemently aigyed that the^nbunal Kas erred ^ lower multiplier pf 8; and jn awarding iqw eompensation of ite.3^,^l-on[y.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 7) Shri Soyrabh Sharma, ^amed.jcQUinsel^^^ ^ No.3, the Newlndia lnsuisnceLS©l^@a^ tHS offending vehicle ^ruek.on f)e;crt^ a:<.t;^i^..'.:L -es?^ ^""^' "(fe the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum ' of Rs.3,28,400/- as comperiSation to the claimants whoare parQlts and younger brother of the deceased, who was unmarried on the date oftheaccident. 8) In a motor accident claim case, whsit is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by Ihie Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in Ihe facfs and circumstances of the case. It shbuld neither be a meager ambunt of compensation, nora Bbnanza. 9) Nowwe shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,28,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstahces of the present case. 10) The claimants cahrlot have anyll^itimate gilevanceabout theassessmentOftheineomeofthedeeeasedbytheTribunalat Rs.6,800/- per month as the claimants themselves produced his salary certificate before the Tribunal which established the ^ income ofthe deceased to the extent of Rs.6,800/- per month only; 11) The deduction of 50% of the iihcome of the deceased towards his personal expenses, considering that deceased Bhuheshwar Ghoudhary oh the date of the accident was uhmarried cannot be found faultwith, ?in viewofthe dicta oftltie , Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009)1 , t^"^'1"^^.,.^<i" '"%. •sa;.'. • •'^'. ?9SSh. "! 1S»a:s!.^ w f- •^'.^f SupremeCourtCases225andSarlaVerma(Smt)andQthers Versus Delhi Trahsport Gorporaltion and another; reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 12) ThemultiplierofSselectedbytheTnbunalcohSideringthat the elaimants are parents and younger brother of the deceased, CannotbefbundfaultwithinviewofthedictumoftheApexCoyrt \nffi\e case af Municipal Coi'poration 6f Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, whereiri it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parentsOffhedeGeaSed, themultipliershouldneverexceed 10. It is al^ relevant here to mentkin that claimant No-I^^^^R^ 1 Choudhary, father 6ftR&3e<^sed?hascategoricallyadmittedi hisstatemerltbeferetBe;1'riBuM§lt|liatheiQwnsagriGU the villageand^asttisowhindepenyenfihGorriefro J- ^ 13) Even otherwise, the CQmpensation of Rs.3,28,400/- awarded by the Tribunal whenexamined in the contextofWeifact that deceased Bhuneshwar Choudhary was residing separately at Bhilai on account of his studies, whereas the claimants were residing inthedistrictofMaliasamynd;theyeceasedwa&runhing 'his own s^parate establiShment at Bhilai; was paying hiscolliege fees from his income; father of the deceased has his own jndependent inGOi'ne from agricultures; 1n our opinioh, cannof be termed as inadequate sb as to warrant enhancement in this t appeal. '.,^i''''.'''"-:''''-^S.,.^^ <&,•' ^-£:ri0^^&,' l' ^^^SKS^^., subbu J 14) For the fbregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed ahd is hereby dismissed. 15) Noorder as toGOSts. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar judge .ff- ^ -• '{I 1