^?m!s^^^'i'^l^^m^'w H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIV!SIQN_BENCH —7 CQRAM: Appellants Claimants Respondents HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR.J Misc Appeal (0 No. 314 of 2006 1 Smt. Maina Baghel aged 54 years S/o Late Shyam Ratan 2 Bhupendra Baghel, aged 24 years, S/o Late Shyam Ratan 3 Manoj Baghel aged 18 years, S/o Late Shyam Ratan, All R/o- tenhera, Tah.- Saja, Distt. - Durg at present - E/324, CSEB Colony Darri (East) Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1 Kanak Ram Sagar, Applicants, Aged 40 years S/o Chaitram R/o Bhami (Parsada) PS-Chakarbhata, At present - Chingrajpara, PS-Sarkanda, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) 2 Nagendra Pandey, aged - 40 years, S/o Dr. G.P. Pandey R/o Songanga colony, Seepat Road, Tahsil & District Bilaspur(C.G.) (Owner) 3 The Oriental Insyrance Qompany, Branch - Office, T.P. Nagar, Tah. & Distt-Korba (C.G.). (Insurer) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri P. Tiwari, counsel fbr respondent No.2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, ^ounsel for respondent No.3. ../-^ ORDER (10th January, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The mother and brothere of de(»asedYashwant Kumar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation avrarded by the Addltionat Motor Accident Claims Trlbunal, Korba, (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.85/2X)4. 2) The ctaimants claimed compensation of iRs.63,02,200/-, by filing a clalm petition under Section166 of the Motor Vehtetes Act, for the death of deceasMl Yashwanl Kumar in the motor accident on 14.02.2003 when hls motorcycle was dashed by the offendlng Dumper bearing reglstration NO.CG-10A/1860, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants ftirther pleaded that deceased Yashwant Kumar used to eam Rs.5,800/- per month by working as Medical Representative in The^a Pharmaceuticals Company. 3) The driver of the offending vehtele Dumper did not contest the claim and was proceeded exparte. 4) The owner and insurer dT the offending vehicle Dumper contested the clalm and denied their liability to pay ccmpensation to theclaimants. The ownerdenied even involvement of his Dumper in the acckient. The insurer took the further ptea thatthe Dumper was being plied in breach ofthe policy conditionsand the flfr <^^^ driver of the Dumper was not holding any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined AW-1 Bhupendra Baghet, AW-2 Dharam Singh, AW-3 Sukh Sagar Sahu and AW-4 Sandeep Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the owner and insurer of the offending vehicte Dumper did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evklence led before it held that deceased Yashwant Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehlcle Dumper bearing registration NO.CG-10A/1860; as the above offending Dumper, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental 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. 7) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,800/- per month and Rs.33,600/- per annum. By deducting 40% of Rs.33,600/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,160/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,160/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to li^ii;i,:i:l!ll3lblMH ^ Rs.2,21,760/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,46,760/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Yashwant Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,46,760/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 9) Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,800/- per month only; in deducting 40% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,46,760/- only. 10) Shri Sudhir Agrawat and Shri P. Dutta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,46,760/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. , , 11) Shri P. TIwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 12) In a motor accident claim case what is importent is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tnbunals shoutd be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the c9 case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 13) Now, we shall exsmine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,46,760/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Yashwant Kumar used to earn Rs.5,800/- per month by working as a Medical Representative in Theeta Pharmaceuticals Company, no satary certificate was produced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. The evidence of AW-2 Dharam Singh and AW-4 Sandeep Kumar has been discussed in detail by the Tribunal in para 19 of the award and as their evidence was found belied by the monthty entries in the bank account of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly discarded their evidence about the income of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunat in discarding the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,800/- per month and Rs.33,600/- per annum. 15) The deduction of 40% of tbe income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal oqaenses is rather on the lower side as the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date ofthe accident and in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and '^ ?& j sQ .» ^' ^ others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 16) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal Is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are mother and brothers of deceased Yashwant Kumar and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC- 731. 17) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding sufc«tantial amount of Rs.25,000/- under other heads. 18) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 19) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed. 20) No order as to costs. -— •s^-- •''%__ & Sd/- Chief Justice SA'- R.N. Cfaandrakar Judge subbu