HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON»BLESHM JUSTICB SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A. (QNo. 148/2009 1 Chandrika Prasad Pandey, S/o Kartikram, aged about 50 years 2 Urmila Bai, W/o Chandrika Prasad Pandey, aged about 48 years 3 Ku. Anita, D/o Chanrika Prasad Pandey, aged about 22 years All R/o Village Pendrikala, P.S. Kunda, at present resident of Pandariya Road, Mungeli, District Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus 1 Ramesh Kumar Manikpuri, S/o B.D. Manikpuri, Driver of Vehicle No. CG-10-A/4715, R/o Village Kunda, Tahsil - Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 Mahadev Chandrakar, S/o Gajanand Chandrakar, aged about 50 years , R/o D-5, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner) 3 State of Chhattigarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office Opposite High Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance : Shri Ramakant Pandey, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (05.02.2009) The following order of the Courf was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. .^"-^ 2. M.A. (C)No. 148/2009 •^ Heard on admission. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.09/2006 by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) on 30th March 2007. Deceased -Govind died in the inotor accident on 22/2/2006, when bus bearing No.CG-lO-A/4715 tilted by the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased was the Conductor in the bus. The appellants/claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.52,03,500/- on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. They pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6500/- per month, as he was working as a Conductor in the bus. Though the appellants/claimants pleaded such income of the deceased, but they could not adduce clinching evidence on the point of income of the deceased, therefore, the Claims Tribunal on its own assessment determined the rnonthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- and yearly income as Rs.24,000/-. By deducting l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants was determined as Rs.16,000/-. The Tribunal used multiplier of 12 and the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3500/- towards transportation of the dead body to the village and it also awarded Rs.10,000/- under other permissible heads and a tofal amount of Rs.2,05,500/- was awarded to the claimants as compensation on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from. 10/05/2006 till its realization. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that a low income has been assessed and a low multiplier has been used. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month as salary and he was earning Rs.500/- per month as allowance, but no documentary evidence to this effect was L:^^s^^ .^' '<'1 M.A. (C)No. 148/2009 adduced by them. Even the owner of the vehicle was not examined to prove the monthly income of the deceased. In all these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal looking to the other evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/-. We do not find any infirmity in such assessment made by the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal was quite liberal in deducting l/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, which may have gone up to 2/3rd in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Donat Louis Machado and others Vs. L^ Ravindra and others, f1998) 8 SCC 633, as the deceased was unmarried and he would have his own family and would have spent substantial amount of his income on them after marriage. As far as multiplier is concerned, admittedly, the appellants are the parents and unmarried sister of the deceased. The Tribunal has used multiplier of 12, whereas, in such cases, the multiplier would not have exceeded 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Municifsal Corporation of Greater Bombau Vs. Laxman lyer & Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731. The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonablew compensation fo the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of ajust?? compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "justw denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Haryana and another -Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello ^•^-.^:^ ':'^ f'f^S^ f. •t ',•<., %:^^y./' ^ M.A. (CVNo. 148/2009 /MrsJ and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road TransEort Corooration and another. (1999) 1 SCC 90. In view of all this, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal has no merit; the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- s"nUKuinarSinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge shyna