^ cfo HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 412 of 2008 Appellants Claimants Paltin Bai widow of late Onkar Prasad Sahu aged 40 years, Parmeshwari Bai d/o late Onkar Prasad Sahu aged about 18 years 3. Yogesh Kumar Sahu s/o late Onkar Prasad Sahu aged 22 years All are r/o village Umradah (Paragaon) P.S. and Tahsil Balod district Durg C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants 1. Santosh Kumar Kenwat s/o Sukhdev Kenwat, Valpurva Chowk, Shahdol M.P. Presently r/o Haldi Tahsil Gundardehi, district Durg C.G. 2. Camp: Prasad and Company through M. Shriniwas Verma s/o N. Krishanan Raju, Executive Director, Snehlata, Begumpet, Hyderabad A.P. 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Hyderabad A.P. ADDeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Present:- Shri Indrasen Sahu and Shri Akhtar Hussain, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ^ 1 /^y ^SISIII;.. M.A.C.No.412of2008 ^ ORDER ;th v V" (25mAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated20.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.38/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 17,1 5,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Onkar Prasad Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.04.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,000/- 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 led before it held United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tipper bearing registration No.A.P.-09/B- 4974, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tipper has not filed any appeal challehging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs'.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the /:..'^^^". M.A.C.No.412of2008 multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,64,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Onkar Prasad Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Indrasen Sahu and Shri Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited the insurer of the offending vehicle Tipper, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case 8) 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. /. "^^ MAC.No. 412 of 2008 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Onkar Prasad Sahu used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Tailor, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate -at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The claimant's dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 12) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Onkar PrasadSahu was shown to be 52 years of age in his post mortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 11 for the age group between 51-55 years. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge e^,w