HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 319 of 2011 Appellants Smt. Ranu, w/o Bhagwat caste Gond, aged about 24 years, Levis, d/o Bhagwat, caste Gond, aged about 05 years, Sameer, s/o Bhagwat, caste Gond, aged about Qlyear, Appell^nts no. 2 & 3 are minor, through legalj|uardian Smt. Ranu, w/o Bhagwat, caste Gond, aged about 24 years, Paltan, s/o Hariram, aged about 53 years, caste Gond Holika, w/o Paltan, aged about 50 years, caste Gond. All R/o Hoditola, police station Ambagarh Chowki, district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Saleem Khan, r/o Mandir Hasaud, district Raipur C.G. 2 Mahtab Khan, s/o Rahmatulla Khan, r/o 344, G.T.B. Nagar, Kareli Skim, district Allahabad U.P. At present r/o Mandir Hasaud, season colony, Monet Road, district Raipur C.G. 3. Unrted India Insurance Company Limited, Kamthline, Rajnandgaon C.G. ,/€£sea%. WWWJ] i^K \..-^€/ ^K:^^r bp^- N^K^ M.A.C.No.319of2011 Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri G.V. Krishna Rao, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (27tnSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal fpr enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.11.2010, passed in Claim.Case No.118/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.28,86,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Bhagwat Gond, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 10.07.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum g of; Rs.4,57,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Bhagwat Gond died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.07.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle Tata 207 D.1. bearing registration No.U.P.-70-A.T.-1422; as the above offending vehicle ,.^;A"^^ ^~^:^ '"%,, ..(f .^ '°' t, S ft^.-^s^^. i v^::.^e^9^ ^. ^i^iyK'?^, ^ M.A.C.No;319of2011 Tata 207 D.1. on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay.compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the in6ome of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/4 of Rs.36,000/- towards the persqnal expenses of the •' -•." -^- deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.27,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,57,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of deceased Bhagwat Gond in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petitioh till the date of actual payment. ; 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about,the income of the deceased and in '? } assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- :.^y^ m:iw-. :.i M.A.C.No.319of2011 per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. J 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Qourts/Tribunals should /-"fr"" 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensa^ion in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bhagwat Gond used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- as teacher in a private school, Saraswati Shiksha Mandir; Rs.3,000/- from tuition; and Rs.2,000/- from stitching clothes), no cogent and reliable . evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.8,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. .o^'':-.-:"}^, '.". ^' M.A.C.No.319of2011 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting 1/4 only of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and in assessing the claimants' dependency at Rs.27,000/- per annum. 12) Considering the age of the deceased; his widow (as assessed by the Tribunal as 30 years inthe year 2010) and the parents, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with. 13) For the foregoing reasons, wejdo 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No prder as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu