6\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DjVISLQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Applicants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1687 of 2008 1 Arjuri' Singh, Age about 69 years, S/o Late Tikam Singh, Cast-Chhatri, Occupation Agriculturist. 2 Smt. Puna Bai, Age about 60 years, W/o Arjun Singh, Cast Chhatri, Occupation Agriculturist. Both of them are resident of Village Vicharpur, Post Gataparkala, P.S. Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS 1 Khomeswar Sahu, Age about 28 years, son of Girdhari Lal Sahu, Occupation Driver, R/o Chendriban Navagaon, Post Tatendra, P.S. Devri at present Resident of Aazad Chowk, Telipara, Ward No.32, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 Rup Kumar Mahobeya, S/o L.P. Mahobiya R/o Aazad Chowk, Ward No.32, Tethwarpara, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. M.G. Road, Mobin Mahal G.E. Road, Raipur,(C.G.). 4. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Kamthi line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act .-^" ... -A ~""ift>.' :y..^—:s%. s%, ^i,^:^, t '%"&-% 1 ^.. ^.J/ '^^' .^ ^^ MAC.No. 1687 of 2008 Present : Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the appellants. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, counsel on behalf of Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel on behalf of Shri K.N. Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER rth (27tnSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Prakash Singh are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.09.2008, passed in Claim Case No.53 of 2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,57,880/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Prakash Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.02.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,08,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.CG-04- H/1204 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. MAC.No. 1687 of 2008 ^8i81»BinngNg^ 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tata Sumo has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum. By dedupting 1/3rd of Rs.60,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.40,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.8,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,08,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Prakash Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- only. 7) Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Shri AL Singraul and Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 and 4, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. c^ M.A.C.No. 1687 of 2008 8) 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 drcumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine a§to whether the compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/- as the Income Tax Returns produced by the claimants before the Tribunal established the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.59,450/- only and the Tribunal has assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd 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 deceased Prakash Singh on the date of the accident was unmarried 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 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . 11) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that claimant No.1 Arjun Singh, father MAC.No. 1687 of 2008 subbu of deceased Prakash Singh in his statement before the Tribunal admitted that he was aged about 70 years and his wife claimant No.2 Smt Puna Bai was aged about 65-66 years. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge