~ ./••:':' ,.5^,, ^ /" :%:J:£^ ^V. P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D1VISIQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SH^ RA^JEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.l^. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Applicants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1326 of 2007 1 Suryakant s/o late Shri Harilal aged about 23 years. 2 Chandrakant s/o late Shri Harilal agedabout21 years 3 Vijakant s/o late Shri Harilal aged about 19 years (^\11 r/o Qrt. No.229/ A Zone-2 Char0da, Tahsil & District Durg, C.G. VERSUS 1 Shivriar^yan Baghel s/o Swarup Baghel, aged about 30 years, r/o Satnami Nagar, Purga Chowk, Lakadganj, Nagpur, M.S. 2 Sher Singb, aged about 30 years, c/o Shivnarayan Baghel,r/o Satnami Nagar, Durga Chowk, Lakadganj NagpurM.S. 3 Thp New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, in front of Project Automobiles, Power House, P.0. Bhilai, distt. Durg C.G. ^ Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (08InJMly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.06.2006, passed in Claim Case No.17/20q§. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unftlttunate major sons of deceased Harilal, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum 6f Rs.8,51,976/- as conrtpensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of acfUQl payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Harjlal dled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.10.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.H.-31-M/5575; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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 reoorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,602/- per month and Rs.1,15,224/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.1,15,224/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.76,816/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.76,816/- with the multiplier' of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,44,976/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded ^ total sum of Rs.8,51,976/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their father Harilal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,51,976/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Trjbunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,602/- per month only; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,51,976/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has ^ erred in not taking into account the fact that claimant No.1 Suryakant was granted compassionate appointment after the death of his father Harilal by the Railway Department; and in awarding excessive sum of Rs.8,51,976/- to the claimants who all are major sons of the deceased. 8) 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,51,976/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Deceased Harilal was aged about 52 years on the date of the accident. He was working as Loco Driver. The claimants are his major sons aged about 23 years, 21 years and 19 years. As the age of retirement in the Railways is 60 years, the deceased had only 8 years of service left on the date of the accident. After his retirement,the deceased would have received pension to the extent of 50% of his salary only. Claimant No.1 Suryakant in his cross- examination before the Tribunal admitted that after the death of his father, the Railway Department has granted him compassionate appointment. The Tribunal certainly has erred in not taking into account the fact of grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased. ^^..^^^.^...^^,. 11) The Apex Court while considering the effect of grant of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased in the case of "Bhakra Beas Mahdgement Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors." (supra) observed in paras 12 and 13 : "12. But we find that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefife which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. It is pointed out that respondent No.1 was getting Rs.4,700/- p.m. and a residence has been provided to her and actually the compassionate appointment was given immediately after the accident. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the. High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable. However, the accident took place more than 14 years back and it would not be desirable to send the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. A sum of rupees five lakhs has been deposited vide this Court's order dated 1.11.2004. We ?re of the cohsidered view that in view of the background facts, it is just and proper that the sum of Rupees five lakhs already deposited shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimdnts in full and final settlement of the claim relatableto the death of the deceased. It is for the Tribunal to fix the quantum of fixed deposit and the amount to be released to the claimants." 12) The compensation of Rs.8,51,976/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. (supra), and the fact that deceased \ Harilal was aged about 52 years with only 8 years of service left; the !-% 6 claimants are his major sons; the fact that claimant No.1 Suryakant has been granted compassionate appointment by the Railway Department after the death of his father in the motor accident, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- auefjustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu