^asp J ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU^ DIVISION BENCH CORAIW: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 915 of 2011 1, Sonuram s/o Manbodh aged about ^40 years. 2. TulsTram s/o Sonuram aged about 20 years. 3. Miss Chandrakala d/o Sonuram aged about 18years. All are residence of village Mohlai (Kinjoli) police Chowki Bastar district Bastar C.G. VERSUS 1. Ganesh Ram s/o Maikra @ Mahesh Ram, aged about 27 years, r/o village muli Police Chowki Bakawand district Bastar C.G. (Driver of the vehicle) 2 Rakesh Kumar Umar Vaishay s/o Banshidhar Umarvaishay, R/o Power House Chowk, Shiv Mandir Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. (Owner of the vehicle) 3. Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. IVIemo of appeal under Section ~173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri PK Tulsyan, counsel for the appellants. Respondents Non-claimants ORDER rth (27"'September,2011) -ri^S\ ;y ^L-.-»-i^s%s% ^' ^^?s:^'^!^''. ^ •^j"-' y s ..^?" M.A.C.No.915of2011 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application ,for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2011, passed in Claim Case No.260/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.13,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband, major son and daughter of dgceased Smt. Moti Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accident on 02.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,48,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. .A.C.No. 915 of 2011 'L^. 7) Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- only. 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 thecompensation of Rs.3,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Smt. Moti Bai used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as labour and the Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs.3,000/- per month. As the claimants did not adduce any clinching evidence about the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per month, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 12) The multiplierof 14 selected bytheTribunal alsocannotbe termed on tbe lower side considering that claimant No.2 Tulsiram in his own affidavit produced before the Tribunal disclosed his «33iS ~"^ l'B;®?"--. M.A.C.No.915of2011 age as 28 years and claimant No.1 Sonuram being father of claimant No.2 Tulsiram obviously must not have been less than 45 years of age 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 multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. 13) 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^"