\\ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (Cl No.1422 of 2009 Appetlants Claimants .-k-. l< 1 Smt Shobha Devi, W/o Late Chhotan Kumar, aged about 23 years 2 Ku Kajal, D/o Late Chhotan Kumar, aged about 03 years 3 Ku Neha, D/o Late Chhotan Kumar, aged about 18 months Appellants No.2 & 3 are minor through legal guardian mother Smt Shobha Devi, w/o late Chhotan Kumar All the resident of village Bhatvalia, Post- Pandu, Police Station Vishrampur, District - Palamu (Jharkhand) at present through in house of Babulal Nakchhed, Naharpara, Seepat, PS Seepat, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Respondents Driver Owner Insurer, Balram Gir (wrongly mentioned as BaliraGir, S/o Kumar Gir, aged about 25 years, r/o village Matiyari, PS Seepat, Tahsil & District - Bilaspur (CG) Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, s/ Banwari Lal Agrawal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village - Matiyari. PS Seepat, Tahsil & Djstrict - Bilaspur (CG) Brnch Manager, the New India Insurance CompanyLimited, Divisional Offjce, Bilaspur, Second Floor. Shri ram Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza, Bllaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) "•^.^ ftj Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act PlsilNaNNNNNKtN^' Present : Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri SreekumarAgrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.85/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.37,10,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate widow and minor daughters of deceased Chhotan Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,53,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurep of the offending vehicle Truck/Dumper bearing registration No.CG-04 ZC/0787 liable to pay compensatJon to the claimants. /r\^^^'^ ^.. M. I ^ ^ ^^. ^ I •^j ,,- .^ '^ fi^ 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck/Dumper has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same, now, has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rdof Rs.48,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.5,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,53,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Chhotan Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,53,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, 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 his income at Rs.4,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,53,500/- only. 7) Shri Sreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New Indigi Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck/Dumper on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.5,53,500/- to the daimants. 8) Shri Vijay Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, owner of the offending vehicle Truck-Dumper also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important Is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunalsshould 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.5,53,500/- 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 Chhotan Kumar used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month by working as Store Keeper, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. The salary certificate(Ex.P/14) of the deceased produced by the claimants before the Tribunal was to the effect that the deceased was getting consolidated amount of Rs.6,000/- per month including all allowances, the evidence of AW/1 Smt Shobha Devi is to the effect that her husband was getting Rs.8,000/- per month. In this state of discrepant evidence about the income of the deceased, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribynal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. / •^: 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal cannot be termed as on the lower side considering that deceased Chhotan Kumar was shown to be 30 years of age in his postmortem report 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 Supreme Court Cases 121, prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. 14) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma