^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DjVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants -^' Misc Appeal (C) No. 1266 of 2008 1 Satibai, Wd/o Late Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar, aged about 25 years 2 Ku Savita, d/o Late Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar, aged about 07 years 3 Vikram, s/o Late Mansharam @ BaSlaram Chandrakar, aged about 05 years 4 Vikas, s/o Late Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar, aged about 03 years 5 Jhadin Bai, Wd/o Shiva Chandrakar, aged about 56 years Appellant No.2 to 4 are minors through : guardian mother Sati Bai All of R/o at present Village Pusaira, PS and Tahsil Pandaria, District - Kabirdham (CG) Permanent r/o Jalli, Thsil Mungeli (CG) VERSUS Respondents Chhittarlal, s/o Ramdev Mejwal, aged about 33 years, Vehide Driver, Truck No.RJ 20-G/1515, r/o Vitlage Kuwarati, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi (Rajasthan) Radheshyam Kumawat, S/o Prabhuwal Kumawat, aged about 46 years, Registered Owner Truck No. RJ 20- >^'^ 1 ^a:^ ^ISS^ -w^-^^ \ ^..^J., u!^a&<^ MAC.No. 1266 of 2008 G/1515, r/o Chhatrakunwa, Ward No.16, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi (Rajasthan) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Anand Bhawan, Sansarchand Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), through Divisional Office, Bilaspur (CG) 4 Saraswati Bai, Wd/o Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar, aged about 25 years, R/o Pendrakhurd, Police Station & Tahsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act Present : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri AKAthaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER £th (25tn August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement pf the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, district Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No.44/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.30,30,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a MAC.No. 1266 of 2008 \) total sum of Rs.5,49,500/- as compensation along with interest 6% per annum from the date of fiting 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 the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.RJ-20 GA/1515 liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.4,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.36,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,49,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,49,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'evidence about the incomeof the deceased and in r ]/. 4 MAC.No. 1266 of 2008 assessing his income at Rs.4,500/- per month only; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,49,500/- only. 7) Shri AK Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.5,45,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,49,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Deceased Mansharam @ Ballaram Chandrakar was aged about 26-28 years of age on the date of the accident. He was Mason by occupation. The claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs.200/- per day and the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.150/- per day. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the rainy season, the construction activities are not in full swing and as such, a person working as Mason may not get work every day round the year. \ ,^' MAC.No. 1266 of 2008 •<?, G A padma 11) The compensation of Rs.5,49,500/- awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 12) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the-Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellants /claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable tobe dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge