HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANTKUMAR MISHRA, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 348 of2006 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1. Jaichandra, S/o Jhumuk Lal Dewangan, aged about 47 years. 2. Devki Bai, w/o Jaichandra Dewangan, aged about 44 years. 3. Amrit Kumar, S/o Jaichandra Dewangan, aged about 07 years, natural guardians Jaichandra Dewangah, S/o Jhumuk Lal Dewangan, All R/o Vil'age Bhatagaon Bee, Police Station Gunderdehi, district DurgC.G. VERSUS 1. Nutan,s/o. Ramcharan Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Dusna, Police Station Nawapara, Rajim, district Raipur C.G. (DRIVER) 2. Jalaluddin, s/o Badraddin, aged about 47 years, R/o Gariyaband, Police Station Gariyaband, Distt. RaipurC.G. (OWNER) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (INSURER) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 v Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. ^"T^ /'r^ '\ None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (24th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. The unfortunate parents and younger brotherof deceased Dameshwar are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.40/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,25,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants unfortunate parents and youngerbrother of deceased Dameshwar by filing a claim petition under Sectidn 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.07.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- only though the deceased would have extended great support to his parents in their old age. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the.other hand, contended that the y f' .''KJ*:'*"tS»> '< ^—^•sr^^ t!, - ; ¥S v. "^"y ^»»,^-^'" Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as compensation to the claimants, who are parentsofthe deceased. 5) In 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. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Dameshwar used to earn Rs.5,000 - 6,000/- per month from his business, nocogent and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction legally in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus '€ ^K^ Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that the claimantsare parents and younger brother of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal 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. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not findany scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 121, No order as to costs. ,Ki Sd/- Chief Justice Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge subbu