H§GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARi—l AT EILASPUR DIVESION BENCH HO BLE I RAJEV UPT ‘ BLE SQ $UN KUMA SINH 2 K. Khusbo, Sic fate Shr K oudhry, aged about 13 ar {Through applicant No.7) (oth re reience of N (3/3 HP olony, Da Pence Stan 3a orba(CG) aer Yadv Bs e S/ resh Yad age 32 r ee ‘f llage Pon oe o Raanpur, Distt Bilaspur (CG), resetl esidence of _ Sh bus Officew ew buestand BéiaspuCG Snnk a (u Drivr¥ o Na av d yeas Reldm o Vi d; Pnc Statin t pny r iv N H) Kur h us ne S/o at h BS Thaku Ad s of S u New Bus an iaspu D spur G) Branch Manager, New india inurane Co Limited Ragendra Nager, Chowk, Link Road; Biias’pur Diem Biiaepur (CG) t Niisc. Aggeai under Seciion 173 of the Maia? Vehicies Aci, 1$c28 Preseni : Shri MK 3aeg, coLinsei forthe appeiiants. h 3 ( Sri Rayjndra Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. Shrl Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.. omen mth Seotember, 2910; SORAM: N SHR E GA C J HON HR F R A J Misc. Appeai im. 869 of 2W3 1 Laiit oudhry, S/o late Shr Ciaimnts Chaudhry, aged abaut ‘19 yrs g o i B Ch yes B a sn Q 2 TP C m tm m Dist‘ K Appeliants Ch i KB. a ‘ VERSUS Respondents bhw ma Smg (B owr; le om r d es hiv bs on‘me Std Bir iatt Bua W sc J l I i £ The following order gof the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is oiaimants" appeal for enhancement of the oompensaiion awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 13.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.102/2902. 2) As against ‘the compenssation of Rs.68,82,000l— ciaimed by @e appeliants/claimants, unfortunate son and daughter of l deceased KB Choudhry by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 i of the MotonVehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.05.2002‘ the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.21 ,82;500!- as COmpensation along with interest @ 9%per annum from the date l of the fiiing Of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led l before it held that deceased KB Choudhry died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of ‘ the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.MP—26/C/5491; as i the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any hreach of‘the poiicy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation toithe claimants. s . 4): As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the + r award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. t \ y W l i { ‘ 5) The Tribunal assesseéi the income of the deceased at Rs.27,000i— per month. By deducting Rs.9,000i— tcwarcls the personal expenses of the deceased and another amount of Rs.6,000/- spent by him on his wife, who also died in the same accident the Tribunal assessed'the ciaimants’ dependency at Re.12,000/- per monih and Rs.1,44,000/— per annum. By ‘ muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.1,44,000/~ with the L unluitipiier of 15, the compensation was worked\ out to 3s.21,60,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,500l— under other ’heads,the Tribunai awarded a total sum of R321 :82,500/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of their father deceased KB Choudhry in the motor accident. The Tribunal by the l same award, atso awarded a sum of Rs.1 ,82.0GOI— to the ciaimants for the death‘of their mother in the motor accident. T‘ne Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of R521 ,82‘5GOI- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 8). Shri MK Baeg, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.21,82,500/— oniy; though the deceased on the date of the accident had 18 years of service left before his retirement. . T) Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New lndia lnsutance Company Limited, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunai has awarded excessive amount of R321 ,82,500/- as compensation to the ciaimants. l 1 ; i z x ‘ , 8} Shri Ravindra Agrawai, {earned counsel for respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar Singh, the owner éf the Bus supported the awam. 9) In a motor accident‘clainfgl case‘what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts I Tribunals shouid be I just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. QQ) Now, we shaii eitamine as to whether the compensation of Rs.21,82;500/- awarded by the Tribunal is,just and proper 1 compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, r 11) Though the claimants pleaded and proved the income of deceased KB Choud‘nry at Rs.24;383/- per month, the Tribunal i assessed his income at Rs.27,000/— per month, taking into consideration his future prospects‘in the service. The Tribunal appears to have committed an apparent mistake by not deducting any sum towards Professionai Tax and lncome‘ Tax paid by the deceased on his incomer 12) The claimants, therefore, cannot have any legitimate grievance so far as the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal is concerned i3) The Tribunal assessed the claimants’ dependency at Rs.12,000/— per month and Rs.1,44,000/— per annum by deducting the usual 1!3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and another sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, which the deceased was spending on his wife, who died in the same t 2/’J‘ 4%;7 padma @ accident. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessmeni of the ciaimants’ denendenoiy by the Tribunai. i4) The muitipiier of 15 seiected by the Tribunai ccmsidering that deceased KB Choudhry onéthe date of the accident was aged 42 years is rather on the higher, side in View of the recent dictum cf the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus D‘elhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2909) 6 ;Supreme Court Céses 121, wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. it is further reievant that out of the two claimants in this case Claimant No.1 Laiit Choudhry, son of deceased KB Chcudhry was aged about 19 years on the date of the accident and as such, wcuid have his own independent income within next 4—5 years. 15) 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 multipiier selected. 16} The appeal filed : the appeliants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. t7) No order as to costs. a w i iii W ,i.L,J Sd/— : i Chief Justice t l b