\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2006 Appellant : Smt. Kachara Bai widow of late Claimant Laxman Sahu, aged about 52 years, resident of village Puraina, P.S. Telibandha, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Tah..& Distraiact Raipur C.G. Respondents Original Non- Claimants VERSUS 1. Kalipad Barman son Deenbandhu Bangali, (Kshatri) Block-4, Mana Camp, P.S. Mana, district Raipur. 2. Tapan Roy son of Sachin Roy, r/o New Subhash Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil & district Raipur C.G. 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER »th (08tnApril,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow of deceased Laxman Sahu is the appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.02/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Laxman Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 30.10.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,49,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- only. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should ^, fT ^^ ''f^^s^ ^ 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. 1,49,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimant pleaded that deceased Laxman Sahu used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason, and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. Even assuming the iricome of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, which we have been assessing in other cases of the relevant period, the claimant's dependency would not be more than Rs.12,000/- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses as there were only two personsdependent on the income ofthe deceased i.e. the deceased himself and the sole claimant, his widow Smt. Kachara Bai; multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found faultwith considering that the sole claimant in the case Smt. Kachara Baiwas aged about 52 years and the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes multiplier of 11 for the age group between 51-55 years; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation works out ^t'A^l ^ ^'^A.c/;^ " --^3 :'-7 %jy ^^-•^^^^ to Rs.1,32,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimant becomes entitled to receiveA a total sum of Rs.1,47,000/-, which is less than the sum of Rs.1,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu