HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: ‘ HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1209 of 2003 APPELLANTS 1. Phoolchand Kothari, age 66 years, Applicants s/o late Shri Labhchandji Kothari (Father of deceased) .2. Smt. Leela Bai Kothari, age 60 years w/o. Shri Phoolchand Kothari (Mother of deceased) Address : Phoolchand Kothari Opp. Jabarchand & Company Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants 1. Balwant Singh s!o. not known, aged about 55 years, resident of Prabhat Colony, Gopal Nagar, Bhusawal, (Maharashtra), Father of the. deceased R—1. 2 Sheikh Abdul Rahman, s/o Sheikh Kadar village : Salegaon — Bhushawal, distt. Jalgaon (M.8.) Driver of Truck No.MWD-9601 The New India insurance Comoany Ltd, through Branch Manager,'Unit No.160703, 4/752, First Floor, Dr. Rote Building, Jhankar Road, Bhushaval 425201., Distt. Jalaon (M.S.) Insurer of Tata Diesel Truck No. MWD-9601. 4 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Branch Office of Insurance Company at Rajnandgaon. g HE MOTOR Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, larned counsel for the appellants. Shri hree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri nand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. (15* ecember, 2010) The followig order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additiol Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, (for short ‘the TribUnal’) vide award dated 29.08.2003, passed in Claim Case N.247/2002. " 2) As against the Ompensation of Rs.6,60,000l— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased T‘ Rajesh Kothari, by tiling a claim petition under ection 163-A of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01 .052002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,74,000/- as compensation along with interet @ 9% pr annum from the date of filing of the cim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a clos scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Rajesh Kothari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-05-2002; the accient occurred due to rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tuck bearing registration No.MWD—9601; as MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF T VEHICLES ACT e S A ORDER D n s na V o c S s e la e d n r the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained hnality. 5) ThexTribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000l— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 6,000/- per annum. By multiplying'the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensationwas worked out to Rs.2,72,000I-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,74,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Rajesh Kothari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,74,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased, which was supported by income-tax returns of the t , deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/— her month and Rs.24,000/— per annum only; and in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.2,74,000l- only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 e The New lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the higher multiplier of 17 though the claimants were aged about 66 years and 61 years on the date of the accident. 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 circumstances of the case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The’claimants pleaded that their son Rajesh Kothari used to earn Rs.8,000-1 0,0001- per month from his Jewellery shop. They further pleaded that the deceased was having additional income of Rs.1 ,00,000/- from his agricultural iand. ln the income-tax returns for the assessment years 1999-2600 and 2000 — 2001 produced before the Tribunal, the annual income of the deceased Was shown toibe Rs.55,985/— and Rs.54,71 21-. 11) Even assuming the énnual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/— per annum, the claimants’ dependency would not be more than Rs.40,000/- per annum by deducting 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As the claimants were aged about 66 years and 61 years on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 5 only. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/— with the multiplier of 5, the compensation works out to Rs.2,00,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants becomeentitled to received a total sum of Rs.2,10,000/. as compensation for the death of their son Rajesh Kothari in the motor accident, which is less than the sum of Rs.2,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal‘ 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinha \ / \ x A Sdl— Judge Chief Justice i l ' l Sd/— subbu y , . {’7