'...K-, "^ ^"'"~"v- "%. I',' Ji,_i.^ ,^ '^ry?s.v\ M ;;j ''^s^^^ ^ ^^ ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondente Misc. Appeal No. 839 of 2006 1 Hariram S/o Sakharam, aged about 42 years 2 Smt Vimla Sahu, W/o Hariram Sahu, aged about 38 years Both are R/o Village - Portha, Police Station - Sakti, Distt Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Mainejar Yadav, S/o Kishun Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o Ghasidas Nagar Jamul, Police Station - Jamul, District Durg (CG) (Owner of the offending vehicle) Harendar S/o Ramsakal Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Chhitaolikhurd, Police Station - Goriya Kothi, District - Siwar (Bihar) Present Address - Ghasidas nagar Jamul, Police Station - Jamul, District Durg (CG) (Driver of the offending vehicle) The New India Insurance Company, Branch Office - Korba, DistrictKorba (CG) (Insurer ofthe offending vehicle) Dushyant Kumar S/o Seetaram Rathore, R/o Village - Portha, Police Station & Tehsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa (CG) ^< •• WSf^:\ ^ —%y <2Z. 5 The United India Insurance Company Limited, Transport Nagar, Korba Distt Korba (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 12} OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLESACT,1988. Present: Shri P.K. Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondeht No.5. ORDER ISt (01SIApril,2011) The followihg order of the Court •' was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, district Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.02.2006, passed in Claim Case No.25/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.39,57,500/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Aahilya Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 19.04.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- only. 1 la'WwWTS .-<;" A "•• /-23; 4) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travellfng as pillion-rider also supported the award. 6) 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. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their daughter Ku. Aahilya Sahu used to earn Rs.6,500/- per month, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not- find any infirmity jn the assessment bf the income of the ^,:£^i&%>.., deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The deduction of 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses also cannot be found fault with in' view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado & Ors. Vs. L. Ravindra And Others, reported in 2000(1) T.A.C. 208(SC) and the fact that deceased Ku. Aahilya Sahu would have been married in due course and thereafter could not have extended any support to her parents. 10) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the higher sideconsidering that the two claimants in the case, the, parents ofthe deceased were aged about 42years and 38 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Rangnatfa Gfaandrakar nimreii