^s^ //w^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Wlisc. Appeal No. 756 of 2006 Appellants Claimants Bachpan Yadav, s/o late Chhotu Yadav, aged about 40 yrs. Sushma Yadav, w/o Bachpan yadav, aged about 35 years, both resident of village Barbaspur, P.S. Mahasamund, district Mahasamund C.G. ; VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants 1. Bhuneshwar Ghunte, s/o Mohardas Ghunte, r/o village Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, district Mahasamund C.G. 2. Dileshwar Chandrakar, S/o Neman Chandrakar, R/o village Birkoni, P.S. Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund CG. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, RaipurC.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (19'"April,2011) ^^^^^^^^^[^R^^^^^p The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Amrit Yadav are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.74/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Amrit Yadav by filing a claim petition under Section j166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.11.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,37,000/- 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 C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awardinglow compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- only though deceased Amrit Yadav would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. 4) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^ ^l/ 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 thecase. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Amrit Yadav, used to earn Rs.70/- per 'day as labour/ conductor and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and assessed the compensation accordingly. 8) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day; Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum as pleaded by the claimants, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.12.000/- per annum as 50% ofthe income ofthe deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225; as the claimants are parentsofthe deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 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 \ ^ ®-%I /.: -'v" (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-; by adding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss ofestate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, which is less than the sum of Rs.1,37,000/- awardgd by the Tribunal. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Cuandrakar Judge i subbu