HIGH CGU'RT GF CHE-iixT‘TESGARH AT BILASPER DiViSEORi SENSE 1 éGRiiWi: HGN’BLE SHRQ RAjEEV G§§TA, CJ, l HGN’BLE SHR§ Pu£NGNA1% $%€A?§$R§%K§RJ Present : Shri Anand Shukia, counsel forthe appeiiants. é None for respondents No.1 and 2. j Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondem No.3. i i @ Misc IKppeai No.§33 of 2&334 Miscedianeous Appeai undef $ectian ~1?3 of Me€er eemde est {4m £E%E~§ 201a) The foiiowing order of rhe Court was passed by ; ajeev Gupta5 C.J. #wnegiants 1 Balkisan Sharma, Slo Suragmai‘ £':§a§man‘iS Sharma, aged abcut 5G yearg Smi Kama Bai, W/o Balkishan Sharma, u- aged about 4? years 4 Both residents of Ghandi Chowk,‘ . Rajnandgach, Bistt Ragnandgaor; VERSH$ Res ancients Babulai Verma? $fc Gem J Jat; aged Péan-appn'icar13 abcut 40 years, R10 Nahdnagar Thana Pardeshipur; Indore {M9} Smt Harpeet Kaur, Wlo Satinder Singh, Rm 16 Veergawarkar Nagar, Endsre (Madhya Prade5h) \ 8 United Endia in3urance Co L%.d$ Through i BM Branch Office Kamtee iine Rajnandgaen mpensaiian awarded by ihe Moiar Accident Ciaims Wibunal, R§jnandgaon {for short ‘ihe Tribunal’) Vida award dated 1 $52604, pasaed in Claim Case No.196/2OD2. 2) As against the compensatmn of Rs.33,95,0DG/- ciaimed by th appelianisfclaimanis! unfortunate parents of deceased Nimesh t Shag'me by fiiing a claim peiition under Secrion 166 of the Meier Véhicies Act, far his death in the motor accident on 11.G6‘2002, the T ibun‘ai awarded a total sum 0f Rs.2,95;9DG;/- as compensation to the ciaimanis aisng with interest @ 5% per annum from the daie of the fiiing of the ciaim petition iii! the daie of ectuei paymeni. 3): The Tribunai on a oioee scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it heid that ciaimants‘ son Nimesh $herma died on account of‘ the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ii.‘G6.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent owing of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; as the offending i I This is ciaimanis’ appeal for enhancement of the c i i ve‘hicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the 5 United india insurance Company Limitedx and‘the insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the i i i i i l i i i i ciaimants. 4) iThe Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,00t31- per month and Rs.36,GOO/- per annumi By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personai i eXpenses‘ the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.’i 500/— epehdencv of Rs’iSGOOl- With the muitioiier of '16, tha ompensatuon was worked out to Re 2 88 GOG l- By awarding rther sum of Rs.75000/- under other heads. the Tribunar awarded iota! sum of Rs 2 95 GOOf— a3 compensation to the cEarmantS ror he death of their son Nimesh Sharma in ihe motor accident. The rib-Lina! further directed pavment of Interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,95,0GO/- @ b% per annum from the oate of the filing of the claim petition tin the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Anand‘ Shukia, teamed counset for the appeltants ehementiy argued that the TribUnal has erred tn not accepting the iaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and the esessing his income at Re.3,CtOO/— per month onty; in deducting 6% of the income oi the deceased towards his personai expenses i and in awardino low compensation of Rs2§5 OtJDf- On Shri Dasarath Gupta learned counsel for respondent No 3 Uhited india insurance Company Limited on‘the other hand ‘contended that the Tribunai has awarded excessive amount oi Rs.2195,000l- to the otaimants. 7) in a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid be 'ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. d l C l er menth and Rs.18,00(}i— per annum. By muitiph/ing the annual l tW m"hv 3' ‘ ‘ . M4 8) New; we $ha§i examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper co pensation in the facts and circumstances of the present caee. 9} True, the claimants pteaded that their son Ntmesh Sharma u ed to earn Rs.8,000l— per month by working as Hawker in the fir Ramchandra Chouthmai, Rajnandgaon, no salary certificate to that“ effect was produced before the Tribunai. The witness e amined by the ciaimants to estabiish the income of the deceased to that‘extent i.e: AW/3 Kamai Narayan Agrawai stated that a sum ofE Rs.3,DOG/- was being paid as eatery to deceased Nimesh S arma. He further stated that in addition to the above saiary, soime commission was aiso being ’paid to deceased Nimesh : mU§Ae_.e._~ i Sharma, which used to be to the extent of Rs.4,GOO—4;500/-. in his cross-examination, he admitted that no record was being kept in his shop about the payment of commission to the deceased. in this i state of evidence, the Tribunat found that the income oi the i deceased was estabiished to the extent of Rs.3,GOD/— per month oniy. 10) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the a sessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal, as the p yment of commission to the deceased has not been established fr m the records of AW/ajgamai Narayan Agrawai. 11;) ’The deduction of Su‘i’a of the income of'the deceased by the ( Tribunai towards the personal expenses of the deceased cannot be found fault with in‘view of the fact that deceased Nimesh Sherma was unmarried on the date of the accident and in View of the ‘g 1 1 recené dictum 0f the Apex Court in ’zhe case of Syed Bashea ! Ahamed and aihers Vs Mohammad Jameai and anothei I rieinoa'ted in (2Qu9§ 2 Supreme Court Cases 22$. 2) The muitigiier af 16 seiectedi by the T{ibunai is emaimy on he higher side in View of the fact that the ciaimants are parents of *he deceased and in View 0f the dicium of the Apex Court in the iase 0f Municipai Qarperatian af Gree€er Bambey Vs Laxmen iyer and anether, reperied in (2&33) 8 $CC-?3’i, wherein it was heid‘that in thbse cases where the ciaiman’is are parents of the eceaeed, the mui’ripiier shouid never exceed 10. 3) For the foregoing reasons , we do net find any scope for t n account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the biatmants’ dependency by the Tribunai or the muitipiier seiected. i i14‘ ) The appeai tited by the appetientsfciatmante tor enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. i enhancement of the compensation awarded ’oy the Tribunai either; i b i i i i i i jwmw ,, A vnwww Chief Justice i i em e g; i Sdl-