<^-p.^. /. 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc Appeal (C) No.564 of 2008 1 Bitthaldas Chandak Age 58 years, S/o Bulakidas Chandak 2 Giriraj Chandak, Age 28 years, S/o Bitthaidas Chandak Both R/o At & PO Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund VERSUS te^ Respondents Non-applicants The New India Insurance co Ltd., by Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur Smt Shashikala Chandak, 47 years, w/o Bitthaldas, Chandak, Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ORDER (13th June, 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ^\ Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No.28/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,51,95,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate father and brother of deceased Shiva Chandak, by fiNng a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 05.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Car, which was being driven by the deceased himself at the time of the accident, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded 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, nor a Bonanza. /f^... ^ i 1 v^^ ^ 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) Deceased Shiva Chandak was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. The claimants are his father and brother. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Shiva Chandak used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month from his business, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.40,000/- per annum for the purposes of assessment of the compensation, as the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8) As the claimants claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.40,000/- per annum. 9) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Shiva Chandak was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)6 SCC121. 10) Though claimant No.1 Bitthaldas mentioned his age in the claim petition as 49 years, in his evidence before the Tribunal he ^ ll— gave-out his age as 58 years. The multiplier of 1 1 selected by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to be rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 9 has been prescribed for the age group between 56-60 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) N6 order as tocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu