agag-gwcmgm a? www‘i‘ggmm~i 52x aimépua wee“ eneeeg wade? Sweetiam 3730f me Momg‘ iiehieiee Act MW, i§§¥§$§§w EENmhg CQRaM: @éGN’SSLE $HR§ Riu’EEV Gwii’Tf-x; {3i %5QN’%L£ 8HR§ S ML KUMAR $ENHA, .h imam. Aaawg Na, $2 GE Emit Amyaiéamg "1 Banshi Lal Sam; 8/0 Late Ussoram Ciaéwwaints 80m, 55 ym. i Smt. $umitra Devi, Wic $anshim£ Sam, 48 years. Gciu Soni; SJo’Banshi La? Soni? 14 yea? . Ku. Banii Sam, Die Banshi La: Sam, 4:7 years. ADD NGS. and 4 through Natura! Guardian @ FaiherApp. NM. £343 Eve Maharani Ward, Jagdaipur, Sisii. Bagtar (C.G.), ‘ r v§ER$E§S i~§£5§mm§mi$ 4.. Dham Singh: 8/0 Maya smgh, 3O Nmé—appéicams. years, R/o WI. Chichoii, RS. Nand Ghais Dist? Durg. > ‘ 2. Kiran Deap Kaurl D/‘o late S. Ghera Singh, thmugh : Raépur Rcad Lings, Teiébandha, Raipur. ’ 3.‘ The New indéa inwrance Ca. Ltd, Branch Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. Mr. Jaaab "i", Anthony, Diectar, Gasiaei far As§a, Majandi, Post Tiruveiii (Kera§a}. The Naiionaa insurance Company mi Breech Jagaaipur, D§ett. Easter. Present: Shri Prafuiia Eharat and Shri $antosh Bharat,‘learned caunse% for the appeHants. Nana far respondents No.1 and 4 though served) ishri BN‘ Nancie, learned caun$ei on behah‘ of Shri Ra; Awasthi, Iearned counsei for respondent No.3. 3hri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawaii {earned counsel for respondent No.5. u . ORQER (23$ sepzember, 2m) :The foMwing order of the Court was passed by Rajaev Gupta, Gd}. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bastar, at Jagdalpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated (34.91 .2I303, passed in Claim Case No. 245 of 2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rsr26,6Q.000/- claimed by the appellants/ o!aimants, unfortunafe parents. brother and sister of deceased Kishore Kumar Soni, by filing a cleim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 2706,2001, the Tribunal awarded e total sum of Rst 90.0%.!- as compensation along with interest @ 9% from the date of tiling of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment, 3) The Tribunal on» a olose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kishore Kumer Soni died on account of the inguries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.06.2003; the accident. occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing regmraiion No.M.P.23B/2722; as the above offending ,vehicle Truck Qn the daie of the accident was inwred with the New !ndia inisuranim (Somwny Umited and the lmurance Camgany could mt a$iabiish any breach of the palicy ccnditions; ihe insurance Company was iiabie to pay campensahen t0 the ciaimams. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the ‘x ewerd, the above findings recorded by the Tribune! have now attained finatitye‘ 5} The Tribu‘nat asseeeed the income 0t the deceased at Re.1.5,QOQ/— eer ennum. By ”edueting 1/3“ ct ’RS.15,DQD!-= towards his personal expeneee; the cteimante’ dependency was asseesed at Reta’jiQOQ/e per annum, By muittptying the annual dependency et‘ Re1QGOQf- with the muitiptier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,7Q,SOG/—. By awarding further sum of Raw GDQf- under other heeoe, the Tribunat awarded a totat sum of Re.1590,()t)Qi- ee compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Kiehore Kumar $oni in the motor accident, The Tribune! further directed payment of intereet on the above amount of oomoensetion of R81 ,QG}0()0/- @ 9% per ennum from the date of tittng of the oteim petttion titl the date of actue! payment. 8) Shri Pratuit Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, teamed oounset for the appettants vehementty argued that the Tribunal has erred in not aooepting the cteiments' evidence about the income of the deoeeeed and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/— per annum oniy; end in awarding tow oompeneation of R51 jQGQOQI— onty. W . x 7) Shri aN Nande, learned counse§ on beha§f of $hri Raj AWa5thé, learnad counsel for respondent No.3 New maia mSIurance Company Umited, thés insurer 9f the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the aware and contended that the compeneation of RS1 ,9D,000/— awarded by the Tribunal ie just and preper campeneation in the facte and circumstances of the present e case.‘ M 8) $hri Saniay K. Agrawai and Shri $udeep Agrawai, Seamed counee! for reependent No.5 Nationai insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Tempo Trax, in which the deceased was iraveiling, aieo supponed the award. ' 9) in a meter accident claim case, what ie important is that the oompeneation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case it should neither be a meager amount of comio'ensation, nor e Bonanza. 10) Now, we shaii examine as to whether the compensation of ReiQQiGQQf— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compeneetion in the facts and circumstancee of the present case. 11} True the ciaimants pieeded that deceased Kishore Kumar Soni used to earn RsZOOW— per month as Cioth Merchant, no reiiabie and cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunai to estahiish the above business of the deceased and the fact that his income was to the extent of Rs.7,00G/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding ihe daimants’ evidence about the incom$ cf the dacaased. 12‘} Even as5uming the income of the decaased at Rs.30,0DQ/- net amum which WE have assessed in other cases in the year 2mm the ctaimants’ dependency wouid not be mare than Rs.15,00()!— per annum as the deceased was unmarried on the (meet the accident and in View cf the dictum of the Apex Ceurt in the ceee of Syeii Baeheer Ahamed and ethers Veteue Mehemmed Jemeei and; anether reeerted in @309? i Supreme getitt {Eeees 22E; 5D% 0f the income of the deceaeed is to be (jeeucted tewards hie persenai expeneee; e5 the ciaimente are parents; brother and sister of the deceased, the appropriate muttipiier wouid net be more then 10 in View of the dictum ef the ‘L Apex Court. in the case of Mtmr’ciee! Cerper’atien at Greater gamete}; ills, Lexmer; gig/er and ehmher; reported in gzaim) 3 $CC- '3’313 wherein it wee heid that in those eases Where the ciaimante are parents 0f the deceased; the muitipiier should never exceed 10; by muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.15,DGC)./— with the muitipiier 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/—; by awarding further sum of Rs.57000.!- towards tonerei expenses; Redww- for toss of estate end by adding the sum of Rsv3i000f- awarded by the Tribune! towards transportation of the body, the claimants become entitied to receive e total sum of Rsit ,63,0GG/-, which is iess than the amount of Rs.1,90,000f— awarded by the Tribunei. / 13) Far the foregaing reasans, we d0 mt find any scbpe for enhancement 0f the campensation awamed by the TCr§bunaL iii) The appeai wed by the appellaete/ claimants for Subbu enhancement of the compensation, therefore; ie liebie to be dismiseed and ie hereby diemieeed. /// 15)‘ . NO Qm‘er ae to cosie. // Sal Sd/— : i ; Chief Justice Jm‘ge