HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 1146 of 2003 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT APPELLANT Deepchand Bohra, .age 48 years, s/o Applicant late Laxmilal Bohra, R/o. near Police Thana, Main Road, Chhuria, distt. Rajnandgaon. VERSUS Respondents 1. Balwant Singh s/o. not known, aged Non-applicants about 55 years, resident of Prabhat Colony, Gopal Nagar, Bhusawal, (Maharashtra), Father of the deceased R—1. 2 Sheikh Abdul Rahman, s/o Sheikh Kadar village : Salegaon - Bhushawal, distt. Jalgaon (M.S.) Driver of Truck No.MWD-9601 3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Unit No.160703, 4/752, First Floor, Dr. Rote Building, Jhankar Road, Bhushaval 425201., Distt. Jalgaon (M.S.) Insurer of Tata Diesel Truck Nor MWD-9601. 4 The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Branch Office of Insurance Company at Rajnandgaon. @ Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shrl Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.8 & 4. ORDER (15m December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, (for short “the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.248/2002. v2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/— claimed by the appellant] claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased Nainy @ Chanchal, by tiling a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 01 05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,47,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant’s wife deceased Nainy @ Chanchal died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 01-05-2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearin9 registration No.MWD-9601 ; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the New India /\/v 1 ‘.w ‘59 Insurance Company Limited and the lnsuranoe Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, thé Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not med 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.2}000/- per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to > Rs.2,40,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000i- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,47,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Nainy @ Chanchal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount. of compensation of Rs.2,47,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant’s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,47,000l- only. n /r// ¥ // \ ‘ " \ l @ 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 — The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs;2,47,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ln a motor accident claim 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of' *Rs.2,47,000l- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1D) True, the claimant pleaded that his wife Nainy @ Chanchal used to eam Rs.4,000/- per month from tuition, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant’s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3” of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as there were only two members in the family i.e_. daimant husband De'epchand Bohra and his wife deceased Nainy @ Chanchal, dependent on the'income of the deceased. 12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the sole claimant in the case i.e. Deepchand Bohra, husband of the deceased was aged about 48 years on the date of the accident andthe recent dictum of the Apex Court prescribes multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 13) ' For the foregoing reasons, we do nOt find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) r The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is subbu l r i hereby dismissed. 1 5) No order as to costs. ena\ \,, FEWW _ «e 7‘ _ Sdl. ) w . Sd/- 5 j Suml Kumar Sinha ”Jr’s, Wwww‘ ‘ggdge Chief Justice n