HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants r Misc Appeal (Cl No.320 of 2010 1 Ramkunwar Bai, w/o Late Ramfal Lohar, aged about 37 years 2 Kumari Sudha D/o Late Ramfal Lohar agedabout17years 3 Kumari Sarojanie, d/o Late Ramfal Lohar aged about 16 years 4 Manmohan, s/o Late Ramfal Lohar, agedabout 12years Appellants No.2 to 4 are minor and represented through natural guardian there mother Smt Ramkunwar Bai, w/o Late Ramfal Lohar, aged about 37 years All r/o Koni, PS Koni, Tahsil & Bilaspur VERSUS Respondents Non - applicants Jagdish Prasad s/o Bhujbal Yadav, aged about 31 years, r/o village Renhagi, PS Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) (Driver of Damphar bearingNo.lO-C/1409) Prsant Jain, s/o Pravin Jain, aged about 31 years, R/o Kranti Nagar Gali No.4, House No. P-13, PS Tarbahar, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) (Owner of Damphar bearing No. 10-C/1 409) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite to Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (CG) f^"% "^ ,-f i^...^ I1. 1 %B^-j- \.^^ .-•^•" MACNo. 320 of 2010 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehlclesAct Present : Shri RKJain, counsel forthe appellants. Smt Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (08tnAu9USt,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is daimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.06/2009. 2) As against the compensatjon of Rs.19,^,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Ramfal Lohar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.9,26,000/- as compensation along w'rth interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ramfal Lohar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.12.2008; the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-10 C/1409; MACNo. 320 of 2010 €. c as the above offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insuredwith the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensatjon to the claimants. 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.7,000/- per month and Rs.84,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.84,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.56,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.56,000/- with the multiptier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,96,000/-. By aWarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.9,26,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramfal Lohar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.9,26,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing ofthe award. 6) Shri RK Jain, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in assessing the income ofthe deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month only; in deducting 1/3rd of the -»'^;;,,.A'-': '.;' MACNb. 320 of 2010 c- income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.9,26,000/- only. 7) Smt Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offendjng vehicle truck on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.9,26,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 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.9,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month as the salary certificate of the deceased produced by the claimants before the Tribunal established his income to the extent of Rs.6,590/- per month only. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) Considering that deceased Ramfal Lohar was aged about 39 years on the date of the accident, the multiplier of 16 selected by MACNo. 320 of 2010 the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as 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 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 15 for the age group between 36-40 years. 13) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.30,000/- under other heads. 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 claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Hable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jiistice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge