HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH:B1LASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. M.A. (C) No.914 of 2009 APPELLANT (Insurer) RESPONDENTS The New India Assurance Company Limited. Versus Jailal Baiga and others. QRDER l^**^ Pronouncement of order ^ .08.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge y2_:08.20TO- ,..^3" ^'i 1 %,.ts^^$^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.<C)No.914of2009 APPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENTS Claimants The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite -Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Jailal Baiga, S/o Fadlu Baiga, aged about 45 years. 2. Smt. Dashri Bai W/o Shri Jailal Baiga, agedfabout 40 years. 3. Basant Baiga, S/o Jailal Baiga, aged aboutSyears. 4. Jhanakram Baiga, S/o Jailal Baiga, aged about 4 years. Respondents No. 3 & 4 minors represented through father / Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 to 4 R/0 Tateedhar, Chowki - Belgahana, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5. Shankar Lal Gupta, S/o Shri Sunder Lal Gupta, Aged about 35 years, R/o Purani Basti, Ward No. 13, Kargiroad, Kota, P.S. Kota Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6. Gajanand Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Nagarmal Agrawal, Aged about 45 years, R/o Main Road, Kargiroad,Kota, P.S. Kota, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DRIVER OWNER Appearance: Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Praveen Tulsiyan appears on behalf of Shri Malay K. Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.5 & 6. ORDER (Passedon^.08.2010) 1 VS|ig?p?'^^ ^- ;!?.. '"^"' 'y f "v-:>. <.:...... ;.•' y A This is an appeal of insurance company filed against the impugned award dated 28.04.2009 passed in claim case No. 157/2008 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby a sum of Rs.2,78,300/- as compensation has been awarded to the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.2008 at about 2.00 when Santa Baiga after completion of his bazaar was coming to his house on his bicycle, at Aamamohan junction (A/a/ca), a truck bearing registration No. C.G. 10 ZB-1963 being driven by the driver - Shankar LalGupta hit the bicycle, as a result of such rash and negligent driving by its driver, Santa Baiga, aged 16 years, has died instantaneously. Report of incident was made at Chowki Belgahana, on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi was prepared at Belgaha Chowki. Based on the Dehati Nalishi, F.1.R. under Crime No. 65/2008 for the offenee punishable under Section 304 A of the I.P.C. was registered at Kota Police Station. 3. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- was filed wherein it was pleaded thatwhile Santa Baiga was alive he was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing labour works and due to his death, the family members were always deprived of his income. 4. By filing their written statements, the respondents denied the averments made inthe claim petition. 5. After affording opportunity and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the driver of the said truck was completely negligent; the deceased died to rash and negligent driving ofthe said truck driver and on the date of accident, the said truck was being driven not in violation of terms and conditions and awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,300/- and also fastened the liability on the respondents jointly and severally. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side; the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.25,200/-; the Tribunal ought to have kl;/' /.; used the multiplier of 10 instead of 16 in view of the dictum of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 and the Tribunal should have deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appeal of the insurance company be allowed. 7. As against the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck, since no argument was advanced in that behalf, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal has attained finality. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 supported the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation and does not call for interference. He relied on a decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalingram & Others, 2008 (2) C.G.LJ. 375 (DB). 9. It has come in the evidence that Santa Baiga was the elder son of respondents/claimants No.1 & 2 and at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 16 years. The deceased used to work as tabour. As regards the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2100/- per month and Rs.25,200/-, l am of the opinion, the income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is correct and does not call for interference by this Court. 10. So far as the deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is concerned, it willdepend upon the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be framed. In the facts of the present case, 1 am fully satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as there were 4 members in his family i.e. his parents and two younger brothers. K I ^ 11. As regards multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company relied on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another (supra) wherein taking note of the fact that the parents in the case had their own income, the Supreme Court held thatmultiplier of 10 was appropriate, In the present case, the income of the father of the deceased has not been established by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has not been able to adduce any evidence which would show that the father of the deceased was an earning member of the family. Therefore, the selection of multiplier of 16 by the Tribunal cannot be faultedwithon the basis of dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another (supra). In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalingram & Others (supra), the Division Bench of thisCourt held as under: "8. True, the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 (Supra) taking note of the factthat the parents in thesaid case had their own income held that multiplier of 10 was appropriate in the said case. In the present case, the income of the father of the deceased has not been established by the appellant - Insurance Company. In the absence of any positiveevidence about the income of the father of the deceased, the selection of the multiplier of 16 by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with on the basis of dictum of theApex Court in the case of MCfnicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 (Supra)" 1^1111111 ll^ 12. In a catena of cases relating to motor claim cases, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that in a motor claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 13. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,78,300/- for the death of elder son of the claimants No.1 & 2 - Santa Baiga in a motor accident, when examined in the context of the fact that in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another (supra) wherein the Apex Court found the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, in the year 2003, to be just and proper r compensation to be awarded to the parents of the deceased in the said case, lam ofthe opinion thatthe Tribunal was rightlyjustifiedin awarding compensation of Rs.2,78,300/- in the year 2009 cannot be termed as excessive or bonanza so as to warrant interference in this appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. ,— Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1^1: lii ;'