ORDER . (4* Match, 20'11‘) The following order of the Court was Jpassed'” "by RajeevvGupta, CJ This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the.Third Additionai Motor Accidents, Ciaims Tribonal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai') vide a.wardgdated 23.06.2004, passed in Ciaim Case No.97I2003. ‘2) As against the compensation or Rs.5,95,000/- claimed by the appeiiantsi claimants unfortunate Widow and maior sons of deceased Dasaru Ram by filing a claim petition under Section ' 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accrdent onw12.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,18,000/-Y ascompensa’tion along with interest Q 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of actual payment. 3) wThe Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led ‘ before it held that deceased Dasaru Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending _ vehicle Auto-Trolley bearing registration No.C.G;-04IZB—1975; as the above offending vehicle Auto—Trolley, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the lnsuranceCompany could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was e. a liable to pay compensation to the claimants. x ‘ a 4) _ The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceasarl at Rs.50/-‘per day; Rs.1 ,500I- per month; and Rs.1 8,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency cf Rs.12,000/— with the muitiplier. of, 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,000/-. By awarding further sum of. Rs.22,000!- under ‘ other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,1 8,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased». Dasaru Ram in'the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,18,00Q/- - @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award titl the date of actual payment. 5) Shri S.C, Verma and Shri A.L. Singraul, teamed 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.50/- per day; Rs.1 ,500/- per month;vand Rs.18,000/— per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,1 8,000/- only. 6) I Shri A.K. Athaley, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance company, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the insurer of the Auto-Trotley liable to g pay compensation to the claimants as the insurance policy did not @ cover the risk of the deceased who Was tmvelling‘ in the Aute- Trolley as coolie. 7). K In a motor accident ciaim case, what is imponant is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunats should be just and proper compensation in the facts and‘circumstanees of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation no t r a Bonanza. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of ‘ Rs1 18000I- awarded by the Tnbunal Is Just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the clairnants pleaded that deceased Dasaru Ramv used to earn Rs.120/— per day as Coolie, no reliable and cllnching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. ln this state of evidence, we do not find . I any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income ofvthe deceased and in assessing his income on itsown estimate at Rs.50l- per day; lRs.1,500/— per month; and Rs.18,000/- perannum. ‘ 10) j The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3” of k :the income of the deceased towards his personalexpenses though; the deduction in that behalf could have been’to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as admittedly only claimant No.1 g V~Nankuniya Bai, widow of deceased Dasaru Ram was dependent on ~ the income‘of the deceased and the. other three claimants, major sons of the deceased were iiving separately and having their own Independent lncome ) The multrplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be . found fault with Gonsrdenng that deceased Dasaru Ram was shown to be 60 years of age in his postmortem report. bstantiat -' ~ 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding ‘su amount of Rs 22 OOOI- under other heads. 13) For the foregomg reasons we do not find any scope for f the compensation either on account of the the deceased or the olalmants assessment ofwthe income of pendenoy by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected v 14)’ I The appeal enhancement of the compensation, dismissed and is hereby dismissed. / -. enhancement fled by the appellants! claimants for a therefore, is liable to be >1 5) No order as to costs. ' W f : Va ' Su“‘\ Kumar Slnha Chief Justice g/T . f/jtiixx ‘ \ .1 v sdl— Sdl— g, dg 1 l \J; a , ’