HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1076 of 2009 1. Dukhu Ram, s/o Shri Malik Ram Manhar, aged about 44 years, occupation agriculture. 2. Smt. Bhajan Bai, w/o Dukhu Ram, aged about 42 years, both appellant ' 1 & 2 are r/o village Amlidih, tahsil Malkharoda, distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. VERSUS 1. Malik Ram, s/o Bhagirati, occupation - owner of the vehicle, r/o Amlidih, tahsil Malkharoda, P.S. Hasaud, distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. 2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Branch Office, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh C.G. hflemo of^BBeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Respondents Present: Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri B.D. Badgaiyan, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri P; Dutta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (24l"August,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ...^T^'^^.A'' .^ -^s^. c'>^ <B^^, /,/ ".... ^ I V9SSS% 1 "f J \.^y MACNo. 1076 of 2009 The unfortunate parents of deceased Kailash Kumar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.48/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,21,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Kailash Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claim.ants' son Kailash Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.04.2008 involving Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.-11A/4791 and C.G.-11A/4792; as the above Tractor- Trolley on the date of the accident were insured with the United Ihdia 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. ^•>^'::' MACNo. 1076 of 2009 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- underother heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Kailash Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, it has erred in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. V MACNo. 1076 of 2009 8) Shri B.D. Badgaiyan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Malik Ram, the owner of the Tractor-Trolley also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident 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. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Learned counsel for the appellants rightly has not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as the same, in our opinion, also does not suffer from any infirmity at all. 12) The Tribunal has certainly erred in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. In our dpinion, the deduction to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in that behalf would be appropriate in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in th.e cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and andther reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 considering that deceased Kailash Kumar was unmarried on the date of the accident. We, therefore, MACNo. 1076 of 2009 assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 13) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and anpther, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sumof Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Kailash Kumar in the motor acddent. 15) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of co'mpensati6n of Rs.58,000/-. ^CT^ jfif 'l. 1 I 'imsS^% j 1> >„. ^/ / '\. ''•w^.-/ MACNo. 1076 of 2009 17) Respondent No.2 United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rs.58,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. ———__ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu