n""l;i»»w;'"^ ii!.f :<"".—•«». ^ II CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. ,984 of 200S Claimant Smt Misna Devi Thakur, W/o lats Bahadur Singh Thakur, Aged - 56 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Ratanpur, Distt Bilaspur (CG) 1 Vinod Pradhan, s/o Janak Pradhan R/o Non-applicants Shiv Chowk Katiapara Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) (Driver) 2 Rajesh Kumar AGrawai, S/o Resham Lal Agrawal, R/o Statin Road, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) (Owner) 3 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, TP Nagar & Distt Korba (CG) (tnsurer) Misc, Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 19j Present: Shri Devesh Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel for respondent No.3. -th The - following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5 Additional Motor Accident Claims <!/ V. Tribunai, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.01.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.60/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,87,480/-, claimed by the appeliant/claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Ganeshwari, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death on 12.12.2003 on account of t'ne injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 1 1.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,03,242/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Devesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,03,242/- only. 4) Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United !ndia Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Botero Jeep on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,03,242/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, 5) 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. -,,..,,-L :W^L«^^^.^t*-.-*SMigBBlt,K ^ 'v •!>L^:^'--::^ ^? '4^. W-:- .v^' "•-:a-a""' 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,03,242/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) The claimant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,554/- per month as the salary certificate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunai estabiishes the salary of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,554/- only. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liheral In deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her persona! expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, as there were only two members in the family, dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased herself and the soie claimant in the case, her mother Smt Misna Devi Thakur. 9) The multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the claimant herself has shown her age in her claim petition as 56 years and the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55-60 years. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal, or the multiplier selected.. 4 11) The appeal fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Dadma