HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 505 of2011 Appellant 1 Non-applicant No.4 Claimant ADpellsint 2 Non-applica<it No.5 Claimant \ Respondent Non-applicant No.1 Respondent Non-applicant No.2 Respondent Non-applicant No.3 Respondent Applicant No.1 Claimant Smt Radhika @ Kumari Verma, aged about 22 years, widow of late Shri Bhupendra-Singh Daneswar Verma, 7 years, S/o Late Shri Bhupendra Singh, minor, through the legal guardian mother Smt Radhika @ Kumari Verma, widow of late Shri Bhupendra Singh Both are residents of Komuram Lodhi, village Kasari, Post Office Sukuldohan, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Kamta Prasad Nishad @ Kanta, S/o Atma Ram Nishad, R/o Village Bolukonha, Police Station Dumka, Tahsil & District Rajanandgaon (CG) Gyaneshwar Verma, S/o Rewa Ram Verma, R/o Village Bolukonha, Police Station Dumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG) National Insurance Company Limited through-. its Registered and Head Office, 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata, though its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Akash Ganga Parisar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg and Branch Manager, Branch Office Kamti Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Bahal Ram Verma, S/o Phoolsingh Verma, aged about 50 years \ //-^•^ ^3 Respondent 5 Malti Bai Verma, W/o Bahal Ram Applicant No.2 Verma, aged about 48 years Claimant Respondents No.4 & 5 are residents of village Bolukonha, Police Station Dumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Present: Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (2nd May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on IA No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the^delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.01/2011, therefore,.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. .^^ 4) Learnedcounsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, /..- fl i "• SMS'ft » I,-? ^ "s(:£5%£^t^ ^ "-ta.-.-.-c?" ^' :fs^-ts° c3> Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.11.2010, passed in Claim Case No.64/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- claimed by the claimants, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of deceased Bhupendra Singh Verma in the motor accident on 19.01 .2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,57,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Varunendra Mishra, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- only. 8) In a motor accident claim case, whaf is importanf 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.4,57,000/- 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 Bhupendra Singh Verma used to earn Rs.100/- per day as labour and further sum of Rs.5,000-7,000/- from his business of sound and decoration, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent •.'\ of Rs.8,000-10,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month; and Rs.36,000/- perannum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting only 1/4th of Rs.36,0.00/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 12) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be on the lower side considering that deceased Bhupendra Singh Verma was found to be between 31-35 years of age by the Tribunal. 13) 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 themultiplierselected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ''<J nimmi