^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (Cl No.328 of 2011 Appellants Claimants 1 Smt Purnima Sahu, w/o late Lukeshwar Sahu, aged about 30 years 2 Ku Bhumika Sahu, d/o late Lukeshwar Sahu, agedabqyt 12 years 3 BhaveshSahu, s/o late Lukeshwar Sahu, aged about 10 years No.2 & 3 are minor through his natural guardian mother Smt Purnima Sahu 4 Smt Manbha Bai,w/o late Tirathram Sahu, aged about 52 years All are r/ovillage -Purur, Thana/Tehsil Gurur, Dist Durg (CG) Respondents VERSUS Chandrabhan Dhobi, s/o Kuber Singh Dhobi, aged about 43 years r/o Vivekanand Colony, Atal Aawas, House Nq.4Block, Thana City Kotwali, Distt Dhamtari(CG) 't, Ramesh Kumar Devangan S/oManthir Devangan, r/oHarshkeshwar Ward, Near School, Distt Dhamtari (CG) Branch Manager, Branch Office United India Insurance Company Ltd.,1 In front of Shandilya Stone, Devshri "Talkies Road, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari(CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehjcles A^t ^ff^ MACNo. 328 of 2011 Present : Shri Samir Singh, counsel for the appellants. Smt Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23rd September,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by F^ajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal fpr enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.11.201 0, passed in Claim CaseMo.36/201 0. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.34,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Lukeshwar Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 26.10.2009 on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.10.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,38,079/- as compensatibn along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held thatdeceased Lukeshwar Sahu died on 26.10.2009 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ;. .f 03.10.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Pickup Van bearing /y^ \, C^-J %^syJ MACNo. 328 of 2011 '5'° ^. k.- registration No.CG-05 C/2924; as the above offending vehicle Pickup Van at the time of the accident was insured with the United 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 recorded by.,the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per*annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.1,54,079/- under other heads and medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,38,079/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Lukeshwar Sahu, in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,38,079/- @ 6% per annum from the date .6f the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Samir Singh, 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.3,000/- per month and -^^ '*...<... MACNo. 328 of 2011 Rs.36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,38,079/- only. 7) Smt Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Pickup Van on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.5,38,079/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ln 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,38,079/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True^ the claimants pleaded that deceased Lukeshwar Sahu used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month from his Readymade Garments business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.20,000/- per month. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no registration or license in the name of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased- was running any Readymade Garments Shop at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the assessment of the income of the deceased MACNo. 328 of 2011 3^- by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3^ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) The multiplierof 16 selected bythe Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as deceased Lukeshwar Sahu was shown to be 35 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Sm^t) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31-35years. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- ' R.N: Chandrakar Judge padma