A“ 'L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA 85 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA M.A. No.326/2004 APPELLANTS 1 Sajjan Raj Jain,S/o. Late Banwarlal Jain,Aged about 54 years Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o. SajjanRaj Jain, Aed about 48 years, Both R/o. Village Sonarpal, Tahsil JagdalpurDistt. Bastar (CG) Versus Singhara Singh, S/o. Ujagar Singh, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Behind Trivedi House, Near Dubey STD PCO, Nayapara, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (CG) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jagdalpur, Near Anupma Talkies Complex, lst Floor, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) NON-APPLICANTS 1 M.A. NO. 334/2004 ‘ APPELLANTs l Motilal Sankhla jain, S/o. Late Manaklal Jain, aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Sivnaguda, Dist. Bastar (CG) Smt. Sushila Devi'Sankhla Jain, W/o. MOtilal Sankhla Jain, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Sonarpal, TAhsil Jagdalpur, Distt.‘ Bastar (CG) Versus “ NON-APPLICANTS Singhara Singh, S/o. Ujagar ‘ Singh, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Behind Akash . STD Pco, Court Road, Nayapara, Jagdalpur (CG) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jagdalpur, Near Anupma Talkies Complex, lst Floor, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) 1 w’L y M.A.NO. 326/2004 & M.A.334/2004 6? APPEALS a UNDER SECTION 173 OF“THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Agp' earance : Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate with Shri Santosh Bharat, Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for respondent No.2/United India Insurance Company in both the appeals. ORAL ORDER (02.02.2009) The fo110wing order of the Court was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The appellants/claimants have flled these appeals against the award dated 12th Decembr 2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Moor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claims Case Nos. 11/02 85 12/2002. M.A. No. 326/2004 has been f11ed by the claimants Claim Case No. I2/200 whereas M.A. No. 334004 has been filed by the claimants in Claim Case No. 11/2002. Both the aeals have been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Deceased heetal Jain and Neesh Jain died in a motor accident on 22.10.2000 when their He Puch Moped bearing registration No. MP 25/5022, on whih they were traveling,was dased by the offending truck bearing registration No. MBY/8105. Thir arents file two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimin compensation n account of death of the deceased persons in the motor accident. In Claim Case No. 11/2002, which was iled for the death of dease Neelesh, clmants pleded that he as reistered for C.A. foundation course and was earning Rs. 5125/- 85 2500/- total Rs. 7625/ - per month. I Claim Case No. 12/2002, which was filed for the death of deeased Sheetal, the claints pleaded that he was also a student of .A. and was earning Rs. 3000/ 85 Rs. 2500/— total Rs. 5500/— p I‘hough the claimants leaded such amounts as earnings of the deceased persons but no clinching an reliable evidence was adduced n c ma C - er month. ’ p g e t 20 in 2 /2 pp S el ro c h e p d g o f ecd ai a w g d p‘3_ M.A.NO. 326/2004 8r, M.A.334/2004 @ by them to prove such income of the deceased persons. Therefore, the Tribunal on its own assessed the monthly income on the basis of contribution of the deceased in their family. For Neelesh, it assessed Rs. 1250/— per month and for Sheetal, it assessed Rs. 1000/— per month. In case of Neelesh (Claim Case No. 11/2002), the Tribunal used multiplier of 14 and worked out the amount of compensation as Rs. 2,10,000/- Whereas in case of Sheetal (Claim Case No. 12/2002), the Tribunal used multiplier of 15 and worked out the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,80,000/—. In the case of Sheetal, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 7,000/- under other permissible heads and worked out the total amount of compensation as Rs. 1,87,000/—. Likewise, in the case of death of Neelesh, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and total sum of Rs. 2,12,000/— was awarded as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in both the cases. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased persons and low multiplier has been used. He argues that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income and since the accident took place in the year 2000, therefore, looking to the rise in price of essential commodities etc. the notional income would have been treated as Rs. 30,000/—. We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the’appellants. Even if we accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, taking the income of the deceased persons as Rs. 30,000/- per annum, the amount of compensation, awarded to them, cannot be enhanced. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimants are the parents. Therefore, assuming that the deceased persons were earning Rs. 30,000/- per annum, the dependency of the claimants/appellants would come to Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in View of die dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater t Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer & Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 the proper mult1p11er would not have been more than 10 Therefore, the \mount of compensation would have been Rs 1 5O 000/— 1n each \ \ M.A.NO. 326/2004 8L M.A.334/2004 @ case. If We would have added Rs. l0,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would have been Rs. 1,60,000/— in each case. Thus, on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the amount of compensation would not have gone up and they would not have been awarded greater amount(s) than that What have been already awarded by the Claims Tribunal in these cases. No other point was raised before us. The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable” compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the facturn of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Hamana and another ~Vs- Jasbir Kuur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1 999) 1 SCC 90. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants in these cases. The appeals have no merits, the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. i Sd/- i Sunil Kumar Sinha i ‘. i ‘. , Judge ‘ Sd/— l ' 'T.P. Sharma i Judge