^" ^l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.635 of 2011 Appellants Claimants ^ :^. ') <.l. Smt Premkanta Tiwari, W/o Shri Kamla Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 72 years Kamla Prasad Tiwari, S/o Late Rewa Prasad Tiwari, Aged ;about 81 years Both R/o Ward No.12, Tiwari Mohalla, Shahpura, District - Dindauri (MP) Suresh Kumar Tiwari, A/o Shri Kamla Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 45 years All R/o Present Address C/o Suresh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, Street No.3, Sector No.3, Near Bhaiya Talab Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Professor Colony, Police Station Puranibasti, Raipur (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Mohammad Hamam, S/o Mahammad Sharif Khan, aged about 25 years, R/o In front of Rest House, Ward No.11, Village & Post Shahpur, Thana Shahpur, District - Dindauri (MP) (Driver of vehicle Toofan bearing registration No.MP 52/TA- 0146) Tulsi Ram Choubey, S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Choubey, Aged about 40 years, R/o In front of Rest House, Ward No.11, Village & Post Shahpur, Thana Shahpur, District - Dindauri (MP) (Owner of vehicle Toofan 2.^ w) bearing registration No. MP 52/TA- 0146) Branch Manager, M/s Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited Malsarowar Complex, Habibganj In front of Habibganj Railway Station, Bhopal (MP) (Insurer of vehicle Toofan bearing registration No. MP 52/TA- 0146) Branch Manager, M/s Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited, Devendra Nagar Road, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle Toofan bearing registration No. MP 52/TA-0146) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. ^ L. Present: Shri KK Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (17th June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing theappeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fjling the appeal. ^' 'T. ^..'f;--"1 K^> 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The unfortunate parents and elder brother of deceased Subhash Tiwari are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.01.2011, passed in Claim Case No.106/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.62,47,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and elder brother of deceased Subhash Tiwari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,87,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 7) Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- only. 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. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. ^-—^^ ^•..-'... ^A >^ 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the factsand circumstances ofthe present case. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Subhash Tiwari used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month as an Advocate, practicing at Jabalpur in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 11) From para 14 of the impugned award, we gather that no income-tax return of the deceased was produced by the claimants before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal, therefore, assuming that the income of the deceased was to such an extent that he was not required to file income-tax return, assess6d his income for the assessment year 2008-2009 at Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. 12) As the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are his parents and elder brother, we do not find any fault in the d.eduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses by the Tribunal, in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus 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 SCC 121. 13) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that the father and mother of the ^:,.^ "t\k ..^•'fe. ^•/:'/" ^ \-i"''^ subbu f( ^ ,.^ deceased were shown to be aged about 81 years and 72 years in the claim petition. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^