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. 200 of 2008 Appellants Paras Ram Tondon, s/o Budh Ram Tondon, aged 40 years, 2 Ku. Puspalata (Minor) aged 17 years, 3 Ku. Lata (minor) aged 14 years, 4 Mahendra Kumar Tondon (minor) aged 12 years, 5 Virendra Kumar Tondon (minor) aged 1O years. (Appeiiants No. 2 to 5 ail are the children of Iate Smt. Sukh Bai, through their natural guardian (father) Shri Paras Ram Tondon, s/o Budh Ram Tondon, All are resident‘at Viilage Limtara, Matwari Para, Darrighat, P.S. Masturi, distt. Biiaspur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Kanhaiya Dhruw s/o Mela Ram Dhruw, aged 25 years, r/o Mopka near Shiv Mandir, P.S. Sarkanda, dist. Bilaspur C.G. 2. Rajaram Sahu, s/o Bhau Ram Sahu, aged 40 years, r/o Gandhi Chowk, Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, distt. Bilaspur C.G. mwmr wwr <~"*"'l‘“""1"“"’“‘l"‘r‘ M” r n ' rr'fmr i li'l 'i‘Hiailiwrz‘ Hi "7’ l'l‘ i ur’ 3.x New India Insurance Company Limited, Jone omce Bilaspur C.G. (452000) Memo of agpeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri M.K. Baeg, counsel for the appeHants. Shri Sarat Kashyap, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (28m July, 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 9‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.09.2007, passed in Claim Case No.15/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.32,95,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Sukh Bai by Ming a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 19.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,91,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence Ied before it held the New India insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.CG—12— ZC/0686 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper has not filed A any appea! challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained nnafity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,91,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukh Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,91,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filtng of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 6) Shri M.K. Baeg, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.2,000/— per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,91 ,OQOI— only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawai and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New lndia insurance Company Limited the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,91,000l— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A 8) Shri Sarat Kashyap, Iearned counsel for respondents No.1& 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Dumper, also supported the award. 9) in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courtsfrribunais shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,91,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sukh Bai used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Aanganbadi worker and by stitching clothes, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.10,000/— per month. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the, approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. 12) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that claimant No.1 Paras Ram Tondon, the nimmi husband of deceased Sukh Bai was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident 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 multipiier of 15 for the age group between 36-40 years. 14) The Tribunal has been quite iiberai in awarding substantial amount of Rs.35,000/— under other heads. 15) 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 seiected. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement 0f the compensatiOn, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17) y Noo‘rder as to costs. M Sd/- Chief Justine 3dL NKA9am“, Judge