HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 772 of 2009. Appellant / Claimant Mahesh Ram S/o Late Gandhi, aged about 49 years, R/o Gharghoda, Potice Station & Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents 1 Sarabjit Singh, S/o Jagjit Singh, Occupation Transport, R/o Maldhakka Road, Raigarh (C.G) (Owner) 2 Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, Regional Office Krishna Complex, Raipur (Insurer) 3. Tresha Bai, W/o Ijrai Nirala, 35 years, R/o Village Hardi, Thana & Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh 4. Ajit S/o Mahesh, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Gharghoda, Thana & Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 5. Rajkumar S/o Mahesh, aged about 28 years, R/p Village Gharghoda, Thana & Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 6. Pushpa, S/o Narayan Nirala, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Paththalgaon, Thana & Tahsil Pathathalgaon, District Jashpur. 7. Pigal S/o Mahesh aged about 22 years, R/o Village & Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). p 1 ^" %. A '^S: %, Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. [iniiiiini iiii i ui» Present: Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (20th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate husband of deceased Boronika Baghel is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 15,50,0007- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased Boronika Baghel by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 27.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,72,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the dateoffiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant's wife, deceased Boronika Baghel died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 27.11.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.CG-13A/9493; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the y Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach ofthe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 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 income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.32,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,72,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Boronika Baghel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,72,0007- only. .^- "^ t—Tiiiiiiiniiii^ 7) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Couri:s/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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,72,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that his wife Boronika Baghel used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month from her poultry farm, the evidence led in that behalfwas not of clinching nature. In fact, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that deceased Boronika Baghel was the Proprietor of the Poultry Farm. The claimant's own witness AW2 Babulal admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that the poultry farm was of claimant Mahesh Ram. He further stated that the claimant's wife Boronika Baghel only used to supervise the poultry farm. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence ^ about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the incpme of the deceased towards her personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as there was only one claimant in the case. 12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side as sole claimant Mahesh Ram, husband of deceased Boronika Baghel wasshown to be 49 years of age in the claim petition and the dictum of the Apex Cpurt in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in(2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 13 only for the age group between 46-50 years. 13) 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 claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice 8d/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu