J IW, taH^ hfllsc. z Smt Rukhmar Pitambar about 36 vears Bai Dewangan. Wd/o iau'A'a Dev/angan, aged Ku. Laxmi Dev/angan, Daughter of late Pitambar @ Bauwa Dewangan, aged about18 years Ku Kaiyani, Daughter of late Pitambar >@ iauwa Dewangan, aged about 16 years 4 Kaushal Dewarigan, son of iate Pitambar • @ Bauwa Devvangan, aged about13 years 5 Chandu Dewangan, son of late Jagguram Dewangan, aged about 70 years 6 Smt Thaglya Bai, wir'e of Chandu Dewangan, aged about 65 years No 3 & 4 rninors through natura! guardjan mother appeifant No.1. Ail permanent residents of viliage • Kongiya - Kala, Tahsi! Saja, Djstrict - Durg, at present resident of Shakti Nagar, Durg (CG) Hemant Y-adav, son of Punaram Yadav, aged about 38 years, resident of Santarabadi, Durg, Tahsii and District \'-"~'/ 2 The Manager, M/s Durg Bus Ser/ice , Durg, GE Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, Opposite Nev/ Bus Stand Dura, Tahsil and Dlstrict Durg (CG) ^ 3 Senior Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Santarabadi, Durg, Tahsil and District Msscellaneous Aspeal under Section 173 ol Present : Shri Aam Kshetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counse! for the appeliants. Mishra, counsei r'or rest ift-i-f. The fo'lowlng order of the Court was passed by lajeev Gupta, C.J. This is clalmants' appeal for enhancement of the .compensation awarded by the 9 Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 26.09.2006, passed in Claim CaseNo. 173/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.41,35,000/-, claimed by the appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor c'nildren and parents of deceased Pitambar Dewangan by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the fViotor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.02.2005, the Tribuna! avvarded a totai sum of Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation to t'ne ciaimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the flling of the ciaim petition ti!i the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Gautam Kshtrepal and Shri Rakesh Sa'hu, l.saned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepttng the ciaimants' e'/idence about the income of /^r\ fhe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month snd Rs.36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- oniy. 4) Shri Ajay Mishra, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 the Nev.' India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the avvard and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- swarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) In a motor accident daim 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 circuiTistances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor •a bonanza. 6) Mow, we shali examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- avtfarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and.circumstances ofthe present case, 7) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Pitambar Dewangan used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by, seliin; readymade ciothes in different viilages, no reliable and cogent evidence was ied by the claimants before the Tribunal to establish the income of the decsased to that exient. Sn this state of evidence, vve do not find any fauit in fhe approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants'. evidence about the income of the deceased and in ass'essing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own egtlmate. n i) The claimants' dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunai by deducting the usual1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses. 9) The muitiplier of 1 5 selected by the Tribuna! cannot be found fauitwith considering that'deceased Pitambar Dewansan was aaed about 40 years on the date of the accldent as shown in postmortem report. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding under other heads. s.77.000/ 11) For the foregoing reasons, v/e do not find any scope for enhancement of the cQmpensatlon either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the clalmants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the multiplier selected. 12} The appe.ai filea' by the appelSants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- k' Chief Justi< \ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbL l^^^mapf