'A HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRlRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. MJsc. Appeal (C)No. 281 of 2009 y-.. Appellant Applicant ResDondents Non-Applicants *y- v .., Savitri W/o Late Panchram Kewat, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village - Mudiyadih, P.S.& Tahsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Shivlal Dewangan @ Shiv S/o Devnath Dewangan, Aged about38 years, R/o Bhilaigarh P.S. & Tahsil - Bhilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Driver of JeepNo.C.G.-07-ZD/9140 Gulal Prasad, S/o Devdhar Dewangan, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bhilaigarh, P.S. & Tahsil - Bhilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Owner of Jeep No.C.G.-07-ZD/9T40 Indrakumar, S/oMotilal Kewat, Aged about 28 years, R/o Mudiadih, P.S. & Tahsil - Kasdpl, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Driver of Tractor No. CG-04-ZG- 0930andTrolley No.0931 Pyarelal S/oKhikh Ram Kaiwartya, Aged about|35 years, R/o Mudiadih, P.S. & Tahsil - Kasdol,Distt. Raipur Owner of Tractor No.CG-04-ZG- 0930 and Trolley No. 0931 The New India Insurance Company, Branch Office - Baloda Bazar, Distt; Raipur(C.G.) Insurerof Tractor M.A.(C)No.281of2009 ^ ¥ •>- f .. MemoofaDDeal underSection 173 olMotor Vehicle Act Present: ShriA.P. Sharma, counselfortheappellant, Shri A.S. Rajput.counsel fpr respondent No.1 None for respondents No.2,3 and 4. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER •th (16°'Aygust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate mother of deceased Akshay Kumar is the appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No.34/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 17,39,5007- claimed by the appellanf claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Akshay Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date offili.ng 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 son Akshay Kumar died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.04.2007; the accident occurred dueto rash and negligent \ ' driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley M.A.(C)No.281of2009 ^ ^. bearing registration Nos. C.G.-04ZG/0930 and CG-04ZG/0931; though the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, as the Tractor-Trolley was being plied in breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Tractor- Trolley. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- withthe multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.1Q,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as coimpensation to the claimant for the death of her son Akshay Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal furi:herdirected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actualpayment. 5). Shri A.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in notaccepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annumonly; in selecting \.w-l""?"&'Sa>.\ • ft^:'^ ^iS^^s^ '"^. f -^i'^ ;' ~y / ^. "f'-"^,/ "-<?"-.^•,irr.^J' M.A.(C)No.281of2009 n\^ M^ ^t. the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding lowcompensation of Rs.1,10,000/-only. 6) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurerofthe Tractor-Trolley as thesame was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 7) Shri A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Shivlal Dewangan @ Shiv, driver of the other vehicle Jeep also supported the award. 8) In a motor accident claimcase, what is important is that, the compensation to beawarded 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, nora Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper c&mpensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that herson deceased Akshay Kumar, used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Contractor, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evjdence about the income ofthe deceased. .4-1'"""<§.. "^. ^::',..... ....:-• ,,-^ • '^ y '" '^^~~"' .^ M.A.(C)No.281of2009 ^< f-> ^ _..::' 11) Neveri:heless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Akshsiy Kumar was aged about 20-21 years on the date of the accident, weare of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilledlabour, in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that deceased Akshay Kumar on the date of theaccident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the dicta of the Apex Couri: in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and anotlier 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. The claimant's d^pendency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 14) The multiplier of. 10 selected by the Tnbunal cannot be found fault with considering that the claimant is the mother of the deceased and in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Couri: in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the 's . ' deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. ^^•/- ww^'"'' "a- B i!i:J^ I'l^,/ .•^L~: Aiii' subbu M.A.(C)No.281 of 2009 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- forloss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/-as compensation for the death of her son deceased Akshay Kumar in the motor accident. 16) The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,30,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge ^' fr '& :.^--