HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'Bl-E SHra RAJEEVGUPTA, GJ. HON'BLE SHRi SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. 6.. ApDellants Applicants Miscellaneous ADpeal No. 1224 of 2003 1 Smt Kadam Bai Tiwari, W/o Janki Prasad Tiwari, aged 50 years, R/o Village—.lalso.i'PostS^marial, Police Station Koni, Distrlet'BilaspurC.G.. 2 hCu. GeetC aged 12 years, D/p Janki Prasad Tiv^iri, Minor, tl^ougttmother Smt. K^dam Bai Tiwari, w/o JanRi Prasad,; R/o Village Jalso, Post Semartal, Police Station Koni, District BilaspurC.G, VERSUS Resoondents Non-applicants No.1 to3 1 Rampal^adav, aged 26 yeare; s/o Narayan Das Yadav, tYo Village and PostGhatarpyr NavagaonRoad, Chatarpur, PoliceStation Harpalpur, DistriGt Chatarpur, M.P; (TrUokDriver) 2 NihaletiandWadwani,aged 45 years, S/ol-latumaiyVadwanitR/o <3alla Mandi, Chatarpur, Tahsil & VillageChatarpur, M.P. Owner ofTruck No. M.P. 16-A/2896 3. The Oriental Insuranee'edmpany Liinited,ithr6ygh Divjsjon Nanager, DMsiorTG)fRee,Circ(.iithfous6 -.., Chowk,Satha. ] ; ADDealuhderSection'tTStiftheMotorlMehiiclesAGt Presents ShnVA. ©o^r^han.'counsglfOFthi&appellants. N6ne;for;resRQnderitsyNo^;^^&3.'4::-V^:^':']:-'.l'^ Shri Pral<asK1"'iwari,c6unselforre$g<3ri9eH);;NOj2. 1 # ORDER ith (19m0ctober, 2010) The following order of the Coyrt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. . - This is elaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by-the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.44 of 2002. 2) Asagainst the compensatipn of Rs.31,50,000/-claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents andyounger sister of deceased Ashwani Tiwari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, forhis death in the motoraccide'nt on 20.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- atongwith interest @ 9% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till tbe date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close serutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ashwani Tiwari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.01.2002; the accident occurred dueto rash and negligent driving ofthe efriver of theoffendingvehicleTruckbearingregistrationNo.M.P.-'t6-A/2896; as the'above offending vehicle Truckon the Jdate of the acGident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the 1 • • : - ' Insuranee Company could notestablish anyjbreach 6f the policy i /: .' • : • ' conditions.thelnsuranGeCon'ipanywasliableitapaycompensation to theclaimants. wla 'VS& 1 a B :^v? ' ^. ^ . IA. • Ni? ^ "%^.f^/ •:assa3^y y i II >».-' 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3ra of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal exgenses of tbe deceased, the clajmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum.By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensatipn was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. By awarding further sum o&Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,56,000/- as compensation to theclaimants for the death of dece^ised Ashwani Tiwariln the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date offlling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 5) Shri V.A. Goverdhan, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptlng the claimants' evidepce about the iricome of the deGeased and in assessing his incomeat Rs.1,500/- PCT' mdnth andRs.18,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation ofRs;1,56,000/-only. 6) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is |hat, the compensation to be awarded by the CourtsfFribungjlsshoulci be just and proper compensation in the facts and circuiinstances of the case. It shoutci neither be a meaaer amount of co[npensation,lnor a'Bonanzd ". 4 l>- 7) Now we shallexamineas to whetherthecompensation of Rs.1,56,QOO/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstanCes ofthe^resent case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ashwani Tiwari used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as an Electrician, the evidence ied in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find anyfaultinthea|3proachofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income onits own estifnate. 9) TheT,r!bunaihasbeenquitsi!beralindeductingon!y1/3of the income ofthe deceased towards his personai expensesthough the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50%, in view ofthe fact that the deceased was unmarried on the date of theaccident and after his marriage his contribution tothe parents would have been reduced substantialiy and in viewof the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel anfl ariother reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases225. 10) The myltiplier of 42selected bytheTnbunalisratheronthe highersidem viewofthefactthattheclaimantsareparenjtsoMhe deceasedaridinviewofthedictun'ioftheApexCourtinthecaseof Miinlcipal CorporaGonofGreaterBombayVs. Laxman lyerand anoffie?, reported in (2003) 8SCC-731, whereinit|was held that in those cas^i where the claimants are parents of tMe deqeased, tbe multiptier should never exceed 10; 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- i .Chief Jiisticej Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge.. - subbu