.,':^ ^^-ji v-&. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 114 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1. Smt. Rashmoutin Bai Sahu, w/o late Dhanesh Ram Sahu aged about 35 years. 2. Smt. Sarita Sahu, d/o late Dhanesh Ram Sahu aged about 18 years. 3. Ku. Reena Sahu, d/o late Dhanesh Ram Sahu aged about 17 years. 4. Rakesh Sahu, s/o late Dhanesh Ram Sahu aged about 15 years. 5. Ku. Laxmi Sahu, d/o late Dhanesh Ram Sahu aged about 12 years. 6. Jalaram Sahu, d/o Shiv Plrasad Sahu, aged about 65 years. (Appellant No. 3 to 5 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother the appellant No.1 Smt. Rashmoutin Bai) All r/o village Pendrawan, post Deori, Police Station Basna, district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants Desh Singh, s/o Heera Singh Sikh, aged about 59 years, r/o 106, B.T. Road, Kolkata, 35 Third Floor, 16 Hari Street, Kolkata, (West Bengal) Puran Singh s/o D. Singh, aged about 45 years, Caste Sikh, occupation Truck Owner, R/o 106, B.T. Road, Kolkata, (West Bengal), Other Adress 134/1 M.G. Road Kolkata (West Bengal) '%^ ..-:.y •.•^~ 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (09th May, 2011) The following order of fhe 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, Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 164 of 2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Dhanesh Ram Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14.10.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,95,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^^ !< 3) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,95,500/- only. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,95,500/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,95,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Dhanesh Ram Sahu used to earn Rs.250/- per day from his shop and Rs.25,000/- per annum from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribynal at Rs.4,000/- per month. :'?^^ %:'^ .') ^^^NNN^ 8) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 9) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Dhanesh Ram Sahu was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)^ 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. ______— Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge subbu