^^itSM^ f. !'KW€JSgt. I ^ """". //' ^~] "M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRIRANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 531 of 2010 1. Jashraj Sahu s/o late Sahu, aged about occupation Student, Deosharan 19 years, Baldau Sahu s/o late Deosharan Sahu, aged about 17 years, [appellant No.2 being minor on behalf of through his legal guardian brother Jashraj Sahu appellant No.1] Brijlal Sahu s/o late Nohar Shau, aged about 65 years. Smt. Triveni Bai Sahu w/o Brijlal Sahu, aged about 63 years, All r/o village Kolda, police station Tumgaon, tahsil & district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS <<. Respondents Non-applicants Ashwani Kumar Sahu s/o Sundarlal Sahu, aged about 24 years, occupation Driver, r/o village Hicchha, police station Mahasamund, tahsil & district Mahasamund C.G. (Driver of vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registratiqn No. C.G. 06/C/2104&2134) \ Thakurram Sahu s/o Sonuram Sahu, aged about 50 years, occupation agriculturist, r/o village Hicchha, police station Mahasamund, tahsil & district Mahasamund C.G. (Registered owner of vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No. C.G.06/C/2104&2134) M.A.C.No.531 of 2010 0% 3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 06/C/2104&2134) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. &: Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >nd (02"°August,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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.40/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate sons and parents of deceased Deosharan Sahu by filing a claim petition under Se'ction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.02.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,82,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. r M.A.C. No. 531 of 2010 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Deosharan Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.02.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.06/C-2104 and C.G.06/C-2134, respectively; as the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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.200/- per day; Rs.6,000/- per month; and Rs.72,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.72,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.48,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.48,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,82,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Deosharan Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- @ 6% '^,-------- MAC.No. 531 of 2010 ^l per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, 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 a.t Rs.200/- per day; Rs.6,000/- per month; and Rs.72,000/- per annum- only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- only. 7) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,82.000/- as compensation to the claimants. 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 drcumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 'Q) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Deosharan Sahu used to earn Rs.250/- per day' and Rs.7,500/- per month from his kirana shop and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering that deceased Deosharan Sahu was running a ..^lIRMW;'Ui^>i-MkSai*"BPBBB;C '•.^'^^f-^r^^—^^ M.A.C.No.531 of 2010 ^^ kirana shop in a small village Kolda in the district of Mahasamund, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personalexpenses. 12) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with for the simple reason that claimants No.1 and 2, namely, Jashraj Sahu and Baldau Sahu, the two sons of the deceased were aged about 1 9 years and 17 years and as such would have their own independent income within next 5-6 years. Claimants No. 3 and 4, namely, Brijlal Sahu and Smt. Triveni Bai Sahu, father and mother of the deceased were aged about 65 years and 63 years and going by their age, the multiplier would not have been more than 7. 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) • Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal considering that the claimants are two sons and parents of the deceased and the wife of the deceased died prior to the accident, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. MAC.No. 531 of 2010 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ±^?-tol*L^- -^i^- ^rTT^K~~~ p]C«BS::T—;(--.•—.:.- —,. rf"