HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARK: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Claimant M.A. No. 374 of 2003 Dinahath Namdeo Versua Smt.Kamla Devi. (, ORDER Pronouncement of order : 13 .08.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge r ^5SSM!1& 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR I';. SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal No. 374 of 2003 APPELLANT NON-CLAIMANT RESPONDENT CLAIMANT Dinanath Namdeo, son of Ganpat Namdeo, aged about 42 years, resident of Village - Rahasbedapara, Churi, Police Station - Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS < Smt. Kamla Devi, widow of late Mathura Prasad Shukla, aged about 45 years, resident of village — Churi, Pathari Bhata, Tehsil-Katghora, P.S. Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) MISCELLANEQUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT Appearance: Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for the appellant. Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passedon^ .08.2010) This appeal is filed by the owner against the impugned award dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Trjbunal') in claim caseNo. 44/2001. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 11,54,0007- claimed by the unfortunate widow - Smt. Kamla Devi by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct for the death of her husband - Mathura Prasad Shukla in the motor accident on 15.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sumof Rs.1,64,000/- as compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from the date offiling of claim petition till the date of actual payment. Against which, the appellanVowner has filed this appeal on the following grounds: i) Notional income taken by the Claims Tribunal is not ^-. r i i •lfc.Jf'1- @ proper. Itshould be at Rs.24,000/- per annum instead of Rs.36,000/-; ii) The claimant is only claimant aged 45 years, therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd bythe Tribunal is not proper. The deduction should be 1/2.; and iii) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. -\ c/ 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 15.04.2001 at 8.45 a.m. when the deceased - Mathura Prasad Shukla was returning to home, on way at Durga Mandir, Churi Patharibhata, the appellant - Deenanath, who was driving his motor bearing registration No. M.P. 26 K 9933 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to that, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, left ear, left shoulder, back, left hand's wrist and right leg's knee. The deceased was admitted in to Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries during treatment. Report was lodged at Police Station Darri and Challan was produced against the appellant. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties and after perusal of record.it is clear that the appellant has not challenged the incident and the death of Mathura Prasad Shukla in the said accident which took place on 15.04.2001 and due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant the deceased died. His argument is only on the point of quantum. 5. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of entire evidence led before it, held that the deceased - Mathura Prasad Shukla died in the motor accident on 15.04.2001; the accid^DJ: occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe motor cycle. Since the appellant has challenged the impugned award only on the point of quantum, therefore, the above finding recorded by the Tribunalhas now attained finality. 6. It is clear from the claim petition that Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of deceased Mathura Prasad is only claimant. The Tribunal afterclose scrutiny of evidence discussed in its paragraphs 10 and 11 has found that the deceased was having agricultural land; he was 65 years of age at the time of accident and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. By deducting 1/3 from the monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal worked out the i't '? ^s&^-" -^. * •^^ dependency to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal used multiplier of 6. Thus, compensation worked out by the Tribunal is Rs.1,44,000/-. By addition further Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked outto Rs.1,64,000/-. 7 . If the jncrease in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2001, the year of accident in the present case are taken into consideration, the Tribunal has not committed any irregularity in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and also dependency arising out of the fixed monthly income of the deceased. The multiplierof 6 used by the Tribunal and the determination of age of the deceased at 65 on the date of accident is also correct looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. So far as the deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is concerned, it will depend upon each fact and circumstances of the case and no straight jacket formula can be framed. In the facts and circumstances, I am fully satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased looking to age of his wife. In so many cases relating to motor claim cases, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that that in motor claim cases what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal shouldbe just and proper compensation. In the facts and circumstances of case, itshould be neithermeager nor bonanza. 9. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,64.000/- for the death of husband of the claimant. l am of the opinion that the Tribunal was rightly justified in awarding aforesaid compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- in the year 2003 cannot be termed as excessive or bonanza so as to warrant interference in this appeal filed by the appellanVowner. 10. In the result, the appeal filedbythe appellant/owner, therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge