HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA M.A. N0.326/ 2004 APPELLANTS 1 Sajjan Raj Jain,S/o. Late Banwarlal Jain,Aged about 54 years Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o. SajjanRaj Jain, Aed about 48 years, Both R/o. Village Sonarpal, Tahsil JagdalpurDistt. Bastar (CG) Versus NON-APPLICANTS 1 Singhara Singh, _S/o. Ujagar Singh, Aged about 62 years, R/o.‘ Behind Trivedi House, Near Dubey STD PCO, Nayapara, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (CG) The United India Insurance Company ’Ltd. , Branch Jagdalpur, Near Anupma Talkies Complex, 1st Floor, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) M.A. NO. 334/2004 APPELLANTS 1 Motilal Sankhla jain, S/o. Late Manaklal Jain, aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Sivnaguda, Dist. Bastar (CG) 2 Smt. Sushila Devi Sankhla Jain, W/o. MOtilal Sankhla Jain, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Sonarpal, TAhsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) qVersus NON-APPLICANTS 1 Singhara Singh, S/o. Ujagar Singh, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Behind Akash STD PCO, Court Road, Nayapara, Jagdalp’ur (CG) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jagdalpur, Near Anupma Talkies Complex, lst Floor, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) M.A.NO. 326/2004 8L M‘A.334/2004 @ APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance : Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate with Shri Santosh Bharat, Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Smt. Hamida'Siddiqui, counsel for respondent No.2/United India Insurance Company in both the appeals. ORAL ORDER (02.02.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The appellants/claimants have flled these appeals against the award dated 12th December 2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claims Case Nos. 11/2002 85 12/2002. M.A. No. 326/2004 has been tiled by the claimants in Claim Case No.» 12/2002 whereas M.A. N0. 334/2004 has been filed by the claimants in Claim Case N0. 11/2002. Both the appeals have been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Deceased Sheetal Jain and Neelesh Jain died in a motor accident on 22.10.2000 when their Hero Puch Moped bearing registration No. MP 25/5022, on which they were traveling was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. MBY/8105. Their parents tiled two- claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased persons in the motor accident. In Claim Case No. 11/2002, which was filed for the death of deceased Neelesh, claimants pleaded that he was registered for C.A. foundation course and was earning Rs. 5125/- & 2500/- total Rs. 7625/ ~ per month. In Claim Case No. 12/2002, which was filed for the death of deceased Sheetal, the claimants pleaded that he was hiso a student of C.A. and was earning Rs. 3000/— 8L Rs. 2500/- total Rs. 5500/- per month. ' Though the claimants pleaded such amounts as earnings of the i / i x’ A7. deceased persons but no clinching and reliable evidence was adduced / ( s / / *3,‘ M.A.NO. 326/ 2004 85 M.A.334/ 2004 by them to prove such income of the deceased persons. Therefore, the Tribunal on its own assessed the monthly income on the basis of contribution of the deceased in their family. For Neelesh, it assessed Rs. 1250/e per month and for Sheetal, it assessed Rs. 1000/— per month. In case of Neelesh (Claim Case N0. 11/2002), the Tribunal used multiplier of 14 and worked out the amount of compensation as Rs. 2,10,000/— whereas in case of Sheetal (Claim Case No. 12/2002), the Tribunal used multiplier of 15 and worked out the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,80,000/-. In the case of Sheetal, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 7,000/— under other permissible heads and worked out the total amount of compensation as Rs. 1,87,000/—. Likewise, in the case of death of Neelesh, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,000/— as funeral expenses and total sum of Rs. 2,12,000/— was awarded as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in both the cases. ‘Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased persons and low multiplier has been used. He argues that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income and since the accident took place in the year 2000, therefore, looking to the rise in price of essential commodities etc. the notional income would have been treated as Rs. 30,000/—. We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants. Even if we accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, taking the income of the deceased persons as Rs. 30,000/— per annum, the amount of compensation, awarded to L). them, cannot be enhanced. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimants are the parents. Therefore, assuming that the deceased persons were earning Rs. 30,000/~ per annum, the dependency of the claimants/appellants would come to Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer & Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731, the , proper'multiplier would not have been more than 10. Therefore, the , amount of compensation would have been Rs. 1,50,000/— in each /\ M.A.NO. 326(2004 8b M.A.334/2004 @ case. If we would havc added Rs. 10,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would have been Rs. 1,60,000/- in each case. Thus, 0n the arguments advanced by [the learned counsel for the appellants, the amount of compensation would not have gone up and they would not have been awarded greater amount(s) than that What have been already awarded by the Claims Tribunal in these cases. No other point was raised before us. f;e The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable” compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non—arbitrariness. Please see State of Hamana and another —Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others (20031 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello Mrs. and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road Trans ort Corporation and another, (1 999) 1 SCC 90. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants in these cases. The appeals have no merits, the same are liable to be dismissed and areaccordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma ‘Judger