HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. c'. ^.^- Appellants Misc. Appeal No.1020 of 2004 1 Tikaram Sahu, S/o Late Pyari Lal Sahu, aged about 55 years 2 Smt Nanhi Devi Sahu, W/o Tikaram Sahu, aged about 50 years 3 Keshav Kant Sahu, S/o Tikaram Sahu, aged about 23 years All residents of village Gurur, Tahsil - Gurur, Distt Durg (CG) Presently residing at Jadhapur Ward, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Respondents 2 3 VERSUS Bhagwan Prasad Sharma, S/o Nand Kishor Sharma, R/o Vitlage - Banbarah, PS Nandini. Distt Durg (Chhattisgarh) S Karnail Singh, S/o Chait Singh, R/o Santara Badi Durg, Distt Durg (CG) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., GE Road, Power House, Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) Miscellaneous appeat under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct Present : Shri YC Sharma and Ms Seema Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. 'L. ..^v"'y'^ ./^•"^ "^, / .I ^ 1, r ^;3^ i 1 O^ %^r^ ^ ^-^' c ORDER (07th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parentsand brottier of deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu are the appellants before us in thls appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 07.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No.155/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10.80,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and brother @f deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,59.240/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of (he claim petition tlll the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehlcle truck bearing registration No.CG-07 ZC/1107 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,080/- per month. By deducting Rs.700/- towards the personat expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,3807- per month and Rs.16,560/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,560/- with the multiplier of 9, the .^';^"-:' .£.••' 0. compensation was worked out to Rs.1,49,040/- By awarding further suwi of Rs.10.200/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,59,240/- as compensation to the clalmants for the death of deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,59,240/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri YC Sharma and Ms Seema Dixit, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,59,240/- onty. 5) Shri Shailendra Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle truck, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,59,240/- awarded by the Tribunal Ss just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate 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. 7) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensatlon of Rs.1,59,240/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. o^ i 8) Deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. The claimants are his father, mother and brother. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as from his shop, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above income of the deceased. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmjty in the assessment of the income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,080/- per month. 9) The Tribunal has been quite Ijberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction inthat behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased. in view of the fact that deceased Bhupesh Kumar Sahu was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 228 and Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 10) Considering that claimant No.1 Titearam Sahu, father of the deceased was aged about 55 years on the date of the accident, multiplier of 9 selected by the Tribunal ateo does nol suffer from any inflrmity. 11) For the foregoing reasons we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or a^ i.:. ^ subbu the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/clalmants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. i - Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge