> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV $UPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 105 of zoos 1 Appeliants Claimants Rajesh AgrawaL S/o Om Prakash Agrawal, age 38 years. 2 Smt Sarla Agrawal W/o Rajesh Agra‘wai age 35 years Both R/o KhurSIpar Gate B.B.C. Colony, Thfough Gitesh Sales Corporation Din Daya! .Upadhayay Market, P.S. Chhawani, P.O. Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg. VERSUS Reswndents Mudrika Prasad S/o Late Shri Raghubir Non-applicants Prasad, age 5O years. R/o Leyiand Mater Garrage, Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Tah. 8: Distt. Durg 2 Arvind Rudra, S/o Late B.B. Rudra, R/o Q.No.14C, Street—4, Sector—6, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg. 3 The. Orientat insurance Company Limited, Branch 16, Ravishankar Shukla Market, Power House, Bhilai, Distt Durg Miscetlaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : ShriAmiyakantTiwari, counselforthe appetlants. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (39m September, 2011) The foltow'mg order of the Court was passed b , y Rajeev Gupta, C.J‘ 2 MAC. No.105 of 2006 Thé unfortunate parents of deceased boy Gitesh Agrawal are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11‘” Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Triibunal’) vide award dated 24.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.24 of 2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,35,00D/a, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Gitesh Agrawal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor a'ccident on 28.012005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,04,000./— 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 ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental lnsurance‘ Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-07- ZC/O370 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.24,000f- per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.24,000l- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency ’of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,92,000/-. By awarding'further sum of Rs.12,000f- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,04,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Gitesh Agrawal in the motor ‘ x1 3 M.A.C‘ No.105 of 2006 accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation. of Rs.2,Q4,DOO/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- only though the appellants’ son deceased Gitesh Agrawal was a britliant student and had a bright future. 6) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, teamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has iiberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,04,000/— as deceased Gitesh Agrawal was aged about t2 years only on the date of the accident. 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, nor a bonanza. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,04,000;’- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Deceased Gitesh Agrawal was aged about 12 years only even according to the documents produced by the claimants themselves before the Tribunal. He was a school going student, , and was not having any definite and regular income of his own. 4 MA‘C‘ No.105 of 2006 The Tribunal, even then, has assessed his notional income at Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/8” of .the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction; in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in View of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamecl and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (20G9) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 andSarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the ciaimants are parents of the deceased and in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipai Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) S SOC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 1D. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal med by the appeltants l claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. ‘t if N.K.Agarwal it \ i ~‘i sw- Chief Justice . , l Judge gr ‘W 17/ _ sew“