f^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 250 of 2008. Appellants Claimants Respondents 1 Surajm'ani, w/o Narayan aged about 22 years, occupation housewife. 2 Rinki, d/o Narayan aged about 2 years (minor) through natural guardian mother appellant no.1 3. Lolo Bai w/o Gulab Ram aged about 57 years, 4. Gulab Ram s/o Lalan Rajwade, aged about 59 years. All resident of village Ragda, tehsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS 1 Sukhlal Singh s/o Shankar Singh caste Gond, aged about 32 years, occupation Driver R/o of village, Ketka, P.S. Surajpur, Tehsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. (Driver) 2 Ramsiyambar, s/o Banarsi Das Gupta, r/o. Manendragarh Road, P.S. and Tahsil Surajpur district Surguja C.G. 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Officer Manendragarh Road, near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, post Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. A&peal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel on behalf of Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellants. .,^;l*Tii^ /^ ~ I 1 ^ 1 "% \^"; "^.^.^^.' ^..^. Shri Shantanu Kumar, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (29th June, 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 Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.11.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 137/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Narayan by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 07.04.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,41,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal held the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the '^^&^^^ ^.^•s^ /y^k l;^52e^J ^^'y sm ' -^t multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,41,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Narayan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,41,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,41,000/-only. 5) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.4,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6) Shri Shantanu Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Sukhlal Singh and No. 2 Ramsiyambar, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 7) 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, nora Bonanza. •'^:} 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Narayan used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by working as Salesman in a private shop, the claimants' witness AW-4 Ratanlal Agrawal categorically stated that only a sum of Rs.3,000/- was being paid as salary to the deceased. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 11) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chicf Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu