l^ ^ 1»ANI» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 292 of 2010 Appellant : Masudal Haque s/o late M. Haque, aged about 54 years, r/o Ward No.4, Amakharwa, Manendragarh, P.S. & Tehsil Manendragarh, distt. Korea C.G. VERSUS Respondents Karan Sharma s/o Krishan Kumar Sahrma, aged about 29 years, r/o Adwani Colony, Kamtarai, Tahsil Dharsiwa, P.S. Khamtarai, distt. RaipurC.G. Harimangal Ram, s/o Sukhdev Ram, driver r/o Faizabad, Lalganj, P.8. Lalganj distt. Vashali (Bihar) (Insurer) 3. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor S.C.F. 12- 13, Gurudwara Shaib Market, Patiala Ludhiana. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act Present: Smt. Usha Chandrakar, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for respondents No.1 and2. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (29tnAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate father of deceased Nabibul Haque is the appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims ^^s/^-. ^&.'II Wj S<^.-.1^^? MAC.No. 292 of 2010 a Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Korea (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.65/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 19,05,0007- claimed by the appellanVclaimant, unfortunate father of deceased Nabibul Haque, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,13,000/- 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 that claimant's son Nabibul Haque died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.10.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-04-JB/1663; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the ^ '".^;^1&~, 1 •^y^^^ '^^ .'•.3^' M.A.C.No. 292 of 2010 ^ deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying theannual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,98,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,13,000/- as compensation to the ciaimant for the death of his son Nabibul Haque in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Smt. Usha Chandrakar, learned coynsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in not acceptmg the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; inseiecting the lower multipiier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- only. 7) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent Nc.3, the Bajaj Allianz Genera! Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has libes-ally awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,13,000/- as compensation to the ciaimant who is father of deceased Nabibul Haque. 8) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Karan Sharma and No.2 Harimangai Ram, driver and owner ofthe offending vehicle Truck supported the award. "::^ •'^s'•n MAC.No. 292 of 2010 ^^- 9) 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimant pleaded that his son Nabibul Haque used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month from his brick-kiln business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Neither any license in the name of the deceased nor his income-tax return was produced before the Tribunal. So-called agreement produced before the Tribunal was between one Horilal and claimant Masudal Haque. It appears that the claimant's son Nabibul Haque was only assisting the claimant in his brick-kiln business. Since deceased Nabibul Haque was aged about 19 years only on the date of the accident, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month andRs.36,000/- per annum. 12) The deduction of 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Nabibul Haque on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court MAC.No. 292 of 2010 (v^ in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)6 SCC121. 13) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the sole claimant in the case is the father 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. 14) 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 assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 15) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu