HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 711 of 2006 Appellants 1. Mohan Lal @ Bechan Pandey aged Claimants about ~,45 years, s/o. Shri Ram Lakhan Pandey. '2. Smt. Archana Pandey aged about 43 years w/o. Shri Mohan Lal Pandey. Mukesh Pandey. s/o Mohan Lal Pandey, aged_ about 22 years. Vikas Pandey, s/o Mohan -Lal aged about 19_ years All resident of near Darbar Lodge, Telepara, Bilaspur Tahsil and district Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS Narayan Das, s/o Heera Lal through M/s. Food Processing Ton/va, Tahsil and district Bilaspur C.G. 2. M/s Narayan Food Processing Torwa, Tahsil and district Bilaspur C.G. 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp. High Court'Tahsil and district Bilaspur C.G. Punit Singh, s/o Dhaneshwar Singh, r/o. village Narpa Post Dari, district Korba C.G. 5. ‘M/s Kolman, Proprietor R.K. Kediya, through M.P. Tyre Transport Nagar, Korba, Dist. Korba C.G. Respondents g ‘ ~,~*--'- W 6. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tah. & District Biiaspur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. -§—_ Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. i a Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.6. ORDER (08th April, 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 13.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.40/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,44,200/- claimed by the app‘ellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brothers of deceased Rakesh Pandey byvfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of,Rs.3,65,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, 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 at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of RS.3,65,000/— only. 4) Shri Varun Dubey and Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 6, the insurers of the two vehicles, Matiz Car bearing registration No.C.G.1OZD/2289 and the Truck bearing registration No.C.G.12ZC/O716, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the Matiz Car also supported the award. 6) 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts‘and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Rakesh Pandey used to earn Rs.6‘OOO/- per month by working as Marketing Executive in Kinetic City Finance Company, no cogent and reliabie evidence was led before the Tribunal to estabiish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any intirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/— per month and Rs.60,000/— per annum. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunalis rather on the higher side in view of the fact that th_e claimants are parents and brothers of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 . 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial sum of Rs.25,000/-' under other heads. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal tiled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. subbu 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/— Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice. _ Judge