^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HQN'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. AppeaS (C) No. 159 of2011 Appeiiants i Respondents ^' 1. Pancham Singh, s/o. Bipat Singh Thakur, aged about 48 years. 2. Umabai, w/o. Pancham Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years. 3. Ku. Seema Singh, d/o. Pancham Singh, aged about 20 years. 4. Ku. Manju Singh, d/o. Pancham Singh Thakur, aged about 1 8 years. All are r/o. viliage Barela, Poiice Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeii, District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. Narendra Kumar Singh, s/o. Late Krishna Singh, aged about 26 years, Driver of Truck No. CG-10-C/2689, r/o. Vidyut Nagar, Tifra, Biiaspur, (CG). 2 Tribhuvannath Pandey, s/o. Late Nandkumar Pandey, aged about 53 years, owner of Truck No CG10- C/2689, r/o. Kailka Nagar, Tifra, Biiaspur (CG). 3 Bajaj Aliianz General Insurance Company Limited, Lalganga Shopping Complex, Raipur (CG). 4. Ramchand @ Rambhuau, s/o. Hotumai Karda, aged about 42 years, registered owner of Maruti Van No. CG 04-HA-0624, permanent r/o. viilage Bareia, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil IVSungeli District Bilaspur (CG). V ^,^Te ^:^^ '•^s^i^ ^ '^. 'w^ (.. 5. The Orientat insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Biiaspur IVilscelianeous Appeal u/S 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, iearned counsei for the appei!ants. ORDER (8m February, 2011) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, iearned counsei for the appeiiants are heard on admission. 2) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Second Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!,. Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 16.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 76 of 2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.13,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sisters of deceased Basant Singh Thakur, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.05.2009, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.3,21,500/- as compensatlon along with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitson till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the appeiiants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in J T J/ %%:&:y ''•^.^y^-y^'''' awarding low compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- oniy though deceased Basant Singh Thakur wouid have extended great support to his parents in their old age. 5) in a motor accident c!aim case; what is important is that; the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation; nor a Bonanza. 6) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Basant Singh Thakur used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a driver on a IViaruti Van, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence,we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7) The Tribuna! has been quite iiberal in deducting on!y 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Basant Singh Thakur on the date of the accident was unmarried and In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another repqrted in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 8) The muitiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is aiso on the higher side in view of the fact that the ciaimants are parents and sisters of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex ...^ ^,^ '£'^ 1 &-s^, 1 'IT1.1 '^. i^'"' ...^ ^'•w,.^ ^ ^.,^': 4 Court in the case of Mtinicipa! Corpoi-atiofi ofGreaterSom&ay Vs. Laxivisn tyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was he!d that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the muitiplier should never exceed 10. 9) For the foregoing reasons; we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the muitiplier selected. 10) The appeai filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge \ ^ /// nimmi