^e'fVf'*?^,,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!y!S!ONBEMCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 891 of 2010 Appeilant : Ku. Soni, d/o Shri Santosh Kumar, aged Claimant about 09 years, minor through her guardian maternal grandmother Smt, Baisakhin Bai, W/o Birij Bharati (Brijial), aged about 50 years, resident of near IVIinimata Bhawan, Aasarsh Nagar, Ward No.22, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsi! and district Durg (C.G.) . Respondents Versys Shiv Kumar, s/o Shri Piluram Thakur, aged about 30 years, resident of Sikolabhata, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg ff\ f^ \ {^.^.) DRIVER 2; M/s. Gyanita Timber Company, 48-E-1, Industrial Estate, Dhamdha Road, Durg (C.G.) OWNER 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 412.413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, near Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) INSURER Mlscelianeous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act Present: Shri Anand Dadaria. iearned counsel on behaif of Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER ISt ^.. ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an apptication for condonation ofthe detay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellant and the grounds takeh in the applteation, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufftoient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is atlowed and the delay in flling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) The appeltant is seeking entiancement of the compensation awarded by the Eleventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 1 02 of 2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate daughter of deceased Fagni iai, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for her death in the motor accident on 29.07.2008, the Tribuna! awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,65,436/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ted before 'rt heid that cteceased Fagni Bai died on account of the ^;.—-.*,^.^ ,-; ;4^ "'^ i ./ ' v. "°?*L-'y ^....y-1- injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 29.07.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck (Dumper) bearing registration No.C.G.07 C-6351; as the offending vehicie Truck/Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the Reliance General Snsurance Company Limited; the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.2,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.1,333/- per month. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,996/- with the muitiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,55,936/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,65,436/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,65,436/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 9) Shri Anand Dadaria, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.2,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,65,436/- only. /'••""'"-" '.A '"i>, 'eS-^i 10) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunats shoutd 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. 11) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,65,436/- avrarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The claimant's mother deceased Fagni Bai was shown to be 35 years of age in her postmortem report. The claimant pieaded that her mother Fagni Bai used to earn Rs.100/- per day as Labour. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person worklng as Labour does not get work everyday round the year. We, therefore, do not find any inflrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month. 13) The Tribuna! has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as there were only two pprsons dependant on the income of the deceased i.e. deceased herself and her daughter claimant Ku. Soni. 14) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that the deceased was 35 years of age and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport "^ "(\ .••-" :\ ;) V Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31 -35 years. 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 16) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation; therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. , Sd/- Chief Justice su Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge