IN THE mGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - J {///») OF 2009 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES A( APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. ^ 3. ^' >^-?'< ...^K-^. ^^•-y"4- 1 1 V ^- t' 6. 7. RESPONDENTS 1, NON-CLAIMANTS Smt. Kalawati @ Anita, W/o Late Shatmghan Prasad, aged about 29 years^ Ruby Kumari, D/o Late Shatmghan Prasad, aged about 10 Years, Pardum Kumar, S/o Late Shatmghan Prasad, aged about 08 Years^ Neelam Kumari, D/o Late Shatrughan Prasad, aged about 05 Years, Rahul Kumar, S/o Late Shatrughan Prasad^ aged about 02 Years, [Appellant No. 2 to 5 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appellant No. 1 Smt. Kalawati @ Anita] Jagdish Singh, S/o Late Shatrughari Prasad, aged about 55 Years, Smt. Devkunwar Devi, W/o Jagdish Singh, aged about 54 years. All R/o- Durga Mandir., Near Kabeer Mandir, Khurshipar, Zone-3, Ward No.- 3, Bhilai, Tehsil & District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Mahtab Ansari, S/o Gulabuddin Anshari, aged about 22 years, R/o - Vikash Nagar, Korba, C/o - Samim Ansari, Vikash Nagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) [Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/J/4956] Samim Ansari, S/o Wajid Ali, aged about 35 Years, R/o - Vikash Nagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) [Owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/J/4956] The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, 13 Meenu Complex, Main Road, Koshabadi, Korba (C.G.) Through- The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Akash Ganga Parisar, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg [Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/J/4956] ^ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 XI-HC—78 ^\^ "3"^ ^rqT^?; ^ftaTR>, f^TRT^: —...ll/l..fr€........!.)..to.. 'm^iT'^?w"ix-A;-y-"'';--"-'--'-'-""--'^20o'7> 3H^T TTS?^ (^P?^) 3?T^T ^T f^'iich Pl^fT -y?T^ ^qi^T 28.08.2009 ^~^TW?Tf^T Wt^? '^F?fe^h ^TR^fl 1&* ft^ ^N;3E$R '^^f^n^Tri^ B.ilon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocatje for the appellants. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has been f(led by the claimants against th^ award dated 24.12.2008, passec| by the Ist Additional Motor A^cident Claims Tribunal, Durg, iri claim case No. 11^008, w|iereby and whereunder an amoun| of Rs. 4,52,5007- has been avjt/arded as compensation alongwit| interest @ 6 percent per arlnum. The brief facts of the case are! ur^fortunate widow, minor children Sjiatrughan Prasad, aged about 31 y^ars, who died in an accjdent that, the claimants, who are and parents of deceased ai^sing from the Truck bearing regjstration No. CG 04/J/4956, prjeferred a claim under Section 1J66 of Motor Vehicfes Act, cteiming compensation to the tune of lj?s. 25,94,000/-. j The TrSbunal, on a close scrutiijiy of the evidence led ^>y the p9rties, the material available on thej record, and submissions of the parties, assessed the income ofttie deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month by applying multiplier of 17 and| after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sutn pf Rs. 4,08,000/-, by adding 44,500/- on account of other heads.jawarded a total sum of Rs. 4,52,500/-. XI-HC—78 ~3^r '^iFTf^1, ^"rft?PT^/'^TRT^T *<W<'W^»II^» 37(^1^T^ (•'i^^.S?) 'STT^T ^T I^N' Tf^T. S^W^ IT^HW^fi^ ^<3??¥l 1 •^T^f^frT^m^^ fec^ Tf^gT^ ^ 3Tf^| 3?it^ Shri Pandya submits that th^ income assessed by the Trjbunal is on the tower side, as per him, even the employer has st^ited in his statement that decease(| was getting Rs. 600Q/- per m^nth including Bhatta, therefore, the jamount awarded is shocking orj lower side. a^y After hearing the counsel fo| p^rusing the documents and record, th&t the Tribunal has not committed in^pugned. The Tribunal, after appre^: injthe record and after considering th| rejgard to salary was filed by the 44,500/- on account of other heads si^de, therefore, in view of the abov^ foj' the appellants and after |am ofthe considered opinion error in passing the award ^iating the evidence adduced thje fact that no document with appejlants, and even awarded Rs. jwhich is certajnly on higher ^, it cannot be sajd that the a\|vard passed by the Tribunal is inadejquate. 1 " ! ; 1; j In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the lotor Vehicles Act, 1988, whatj is important is that the c^mpensation to be awarded by the (^ourts/Tribunal should be just ahd proper compensatibn in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charit^. ^ iwni a»»n<(» ~s^( -^ww^, ®Ti1'M<i<o,fsK-11'yy )LiA.C...^.y.......U£loI05 ••^••^•••'••/•••^^^•••'•^•^•••••••^••^•••^••••(••••••t p W( 200 ^ 3n^T<q?W ( yiiyy?) 3II^['?RtR^ich WIT a<|ii<l Sl»^tt€l> ^^HW «fta3H^[ c»»i<<I^i<fln<-i(*«riT"^ f^^ <R»I^K ^affiw^n^^^^^^ " •\'.... Sah For the reasons mentionl scope for enhancement of th| Tribunal. Theappeal flled by the compensation is therefore liablel order as t6 costs. / • . • •d hereinabove, 1 do not find any ' compensatjon awarded by the ippellant for enhancement of the o be and is herebydjsmjssed.No Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge