HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS!ON BENCH CORAM. HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J.» Misc. Appeal Nu. 6100f 2004 1‘ Smt. Yuvradevi Banjare, aged about 45 years, "widow of {ate Shri Awdhesh Kumar Banjare. Appellants Bhupendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 28 years, son of 3ate Shri ‘ Awdhesh Kumar Baniare. f Surendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 23 years, son of late Shri Awdhesh Kumar Banjare. 4 Kuman Mamta Banjare aged about 18 years daughter of iate 8hn' Awdhesh Kumar Banjare 5 Shyamratan Banjare, aged about 7O years. son of late Shri Dashrath Banjare. Ail are resident of vmage Daman Post Baldevpur Tah Khaxragarh, dlstt RajnandgaoMChhattIsgarh) ‘ VERSUS Seetaram, aged about 42 years, son r of Shri Mehtar Sahu, resident of Vinayakpur, -P.S. Pulgaon, ‘Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Resgondents 2. Gurcharan Singh Bhatia son of Shri Amolak Singh Bhatia. av Anmoi Transport, GE. Road, Rajnandgaon b. ’ Karlash Nagar ward No 27 Rajnandgaon (Chhattrsgarh) 3. Branch Manager the Onental Insurance Company Limited Branch Rajnandgaoh. Kamthiline. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeal UIS 173 (11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198g Present : Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Senior Counsel withShri Shashi Bhushan, couns’ei for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Shailera Shanna, ounsel for rapdent No3. ORDER (20* October, 2010) d b The following order of the Court was passe y Rajeev Gpt C.J. ua, Thi is claiants’ appeal for enhancement o ther s m f compensai awarded by First Additional Motor Aident Claims ton cc Tbul, Rajnandgaon (fo short ‘te Tribunal’ vide award rina , r h ) l Ca f 2 dated 22122003, passed in Claim se No. 52 o 003. 2 As aginst he comnsation o Rs.33,20,52 claimed by )‘ a t pe: f 7/— the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, major sons, minor I daughter an parents of eceasd Awadesh Kum Bnjare, by d de ar a tilin a clai petition under Section 166 o Motor Vehiles Act g m f the c n 26 l for his death i the motor accident on .12.2002, the Tribuna awarded a total sum of Rs.8,46,000i- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 that deceased Awadesh Kumar' Banjare died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor acoident on I a r 2_f_r{ nd c on 26.12.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing 'registration No.CG-08D/0230; as the offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 flied any appeal against award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained iinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at tRs.,1,14,280/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.1,14,280!- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.76,200/— per annum. By multiplying the annual' dependency of Rs.76,200/- withtthe l multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,38,200/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/— under other y heads and Rs.800/- towards damage to the motorcycle of‘ethe r deceased, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,46,000l. as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Awadesh Kumar Banjare in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the‘ above amount of compensation of Rs.8,46,000/— @ 9% per annum, from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. . ~ r6). Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently a argued that the Tribunal has erred in hot taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased who had about 12 years - before his retirement; in deducting 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his persOnai expenses; in seiecting the lower multiplier of 11; and 'in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,46,000/- oniy. 7) Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Oriental insurance Company Limited on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount‘of Rs.8,46,000/— as compensation to the claimants. ~ ’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.8,46,000f~ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present cse. ‘ u t0) The appellants! claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,14,280l- per annum as the same is based on the salary certificate and the income-tax retum of the deceased produced by the claimants themselves before the Tribunal. We, therefore; do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. [/L‘ \ i 11) So far as the submission of leamed counsel for the appeuants/ claimants for non-consideration of the future prospects of the deceased in the service is concerned, we deem it suffice to quote the observations of the Apex Court in pare 24 of the recent dictum in the case of Sarla Verma (Sm!) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121: ' “24. In Susamma Thomas {(1 994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 sCC (Cri) 335} this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in, Serla Dixit {(1996) 3 SCC 179} the income was increased oniy by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah'{ (2003) 2 SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746} the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables, and uncertainties, we are in favour— of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actuai salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 4O years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ”actuai salary’should be read as factual salary less tax“). ’The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 4O to 50 years. , There should be no additio wher e e of he l deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of inorease, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-empioyed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc), the courts will usuaily taken oniy the actualincome at the death. A departure therefrom should be made s time of \~ only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” As deceased Awadesh Kumar Banjare admittedly was more than 50 years of age on the date of the accident, no addition is permissible in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court. 12) So far as the deduction of 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses by the Tribunal, it is relevant that two 'of the claimants i.e. Bhupendra Kumar Banjare and Surendra Kumar Banjare were major sons of the deceased, aged about 28 years and 23 years on the date of the accident. , ~ in fact, it has come in the evidence‘of AW1 Bhupendra Kumar Banjare himself that he was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2001 i.e. prior to the accident which took place on 26-1 2-2002. 13) ln this state of evidence, we dosnot tind any fault in the deduction of 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal , towards his personal expenses. 14) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of sarla Verma (Supra) wherein multiplier of 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51 -55 years. 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find ‘any scope for ‘ enhancement of the compensation either on account of the income of the deceased or the claimants’ dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 16) Even otherwise. the compensation of Rs.8,46,000l— awarded by the Tribunél in the year 2003 cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeai. 17) The appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be' dismissed and is hereby dismissed. />,_J i [KT 1"8). a No order asto costs. a - Sd/_ it , 3‘ ’ }R.N.ci:anar'akar Sdl‘ \ ‘L :7 : - Judge ' Chief Justice s 6 if if/s“r x ii ‘ .7 Viyrkj‘ r ‘