HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1138 of2007 1. Dharamdas Kosre, s/o Harilal Kosre, aged about 35 years. 2. Ku. Pusplata, d/o Dharamdas Kosre, aged about 13 years. 3. Ku. Varsha, d/o Dharamdas Kosre, aged about 11 years. 4. Ravindra Kumar, s/o Dharamdas Kosre, aged about 9 years. 5. Ku. Bhavna, d/o Dharamdas Kosre, aged about 7 years. 6. Shailendra Kumar, s/o Dharamdas Kosre, aged about 5 years. (All R/o C/o Faguram Sahu, r/o P.S. Baghera Pulgaon, tahsil & distt. Durg C.G.) (Appellant No. 2 to 6 through their natural guardian father Dharamdas Kosre) .....Claimants VERSUS Respondents Rohit Kumar, s/o Chaitram Sghu, aged about 39 years, r/o Nawagabn, P.S. Somni, distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. Driver of the vehicle /r"^ \ ^^??^ 1 v:^^ ^^-Ss^" MAC.No. 1138 of 2007 u^ I; i 2. Manoj Stone Crusher, r/o Branch Office Kampti Line, Ganjline, tahsil & distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. Owner of the vehicle 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, P.B. 51, Malviya Nagar, Durg C.G. Insurer Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the appellants. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Ashish Beck, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (15th November, 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 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.04.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 145/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,45,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Khema Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 10.11.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,18,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim^etttion till the date of actual payment. /'^" "^ ^-k 11 ^ •'^ M.A.C.No.1138of2007 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Smt. Khema Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 10.11.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-08/B-0302; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 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.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimahts' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.3,18,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Smt. Khema Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. I ' ..^: ^ MAC.No. 1138 of 2007 6) Shri P.R. Patankar, 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.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- only. 7) Shri Ashish Beck, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Rohit Kumar, the driver of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awardedby 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.3,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) Deceased Smt. Khema Bai was aged about 35 years pn the date of the accident. Though the claimants pleaded that she used to earn Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- per month from tailoring work, /'^^. ^. \'\ •,'•••'^ ^ ^ ' \'- MAC.No. 1138of2007 no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal in that behalf. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the evidence of AW1 Dharamdas Kosre, husband of the deceased that they were residing in a small village having population of 4,000 - 5,000 only. It has further come in his evidence that there are several other tailors in the locality. In such a factual scenario, it is difficult to believe that deceased Smt. Khema Bai could have earned Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- per month from tailoring work alone. 12) The claimants in the present case are husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Khema Bai. It is apparent that the minor children are primarily dependent on their father for their maintenance. 13) The compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 14) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable tobe dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- diief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwa] Judge nimmi r"