jtEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fd No. \ /2011 APPELLANTS /: SLAIMANTS / ^r>yX ^y-y^ ^^ <?<sy^' o',^ lirmal Bagh, S/o Darshan Bagh, Aged about 46 Years, :. Laxmi Bagh, RESPONDENTS: IjlON-APPLICANTS D/oNirmal Bagh, J\ged about 22 Years, -^. Kanchan Bagh , D/o Nirmal Bagh, Aged about 18 Years, ^Pramod Bagh, ^ S/o Nirmal Bagh, Aged about 14 Years, 5. Saraswati Bagh, D/o Nirmal Bagh, Aged about 12 years, 6.''Sonal Bagh, ^ D/o Nirmal Bagh, Aged about 8 years, Appella'nts No. 4 to 6 being minors represented by their natural guardian & father appellant No. 1 Nirmal Bagh S/o Darshan Bagh. All R/o Indira Atma Nagar, Purena Telibandha, Thana Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS •^y'1. Mohd. Hakim, S/o Afsan Husain, R/o Permanent Address Jagatpur Bagada, Thana Basantpur District Siwan - Bihar U.P. Present Address Dakshin Dadhi 26 No. Gate, Raja Husain Shop No. 19, Sadhna Arudhaliya Road Kolkata Thana Lake Town PIN 700 048 (West Bengal) ^pp-^ (Driver of Vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. W.B.-37-A /7323) 2^Fakir. Mohammad, ^ S/o Late Peer Mohammad, R/o 83 F/H/1 Belgachiya Road Kolkata (W.B.) (Owner of Vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. W.B.-37-A /7323) United India Insurance Cornpany Limited, Through Divisional Manager Kutchery Chowk Krishna Complex, Raipur District Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of Vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. W. B.-37-A /7323) ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 fOR ENHANGMENT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT <I- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Wlisc. Appeal (C) No. 1010 of2011 Appellants Claimants ^- Respondents Non-applicants 1. Nirmal Bagh, s/o Darshan Bagh, aged about 46 years. 2. Laxmi Bagh, d/o Nirmal Bagh, aged about 22 years, 3. Kanchan Bagh, d/o Nirmal Bagh, aged about 18 years, 4. Pramod Bagh, s/o Nirmal Bagh, aged about 14 years, 5. Saraswati Bagh, d/o Nirmal Bagh, aged about 22 years, 6. Sonal Bagh, d/o Nirmal Bagh, aged about 8 years, Appellants No. 4 to 6 being minors represented by their natural guardian & father appellant No.1 Nirmal Bagh s/o Darshan Bagh. All r/o. Indira Atma Nagar, Purena Telibandha, thana Telibandha Raipur, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Mohcl. Hakim, s/o Afsan Husain, r/o Permanent address Jagatpur <"Bagada, Thana Basantpur district Siwan Bihar U.P. Present address Dakshin Dadhi 26 No. Gate, Raja Husain Shop No.19, Sadhna Arudhaliya Road Kolkata Thana Lake Town PIN 700 048 (West Bengal) (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.W.B. 37-A/7323) ^"''^ '-i^^.^-S^K. ^ z'u AC.No. 1010 of 2011 !<- Fakir Mohammad, s/o late Peer Mohammad, r/o 83 F/H/1 Belgachiya Road Kolkata W.B. (Owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.W.B.37-A/7323) United India -Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Krishna complex, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.W.B.37-A/7323) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. ORDER •th (26'"September,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On dye consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded ^;;~ in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. .A.C.No. 1010 of 2011 ^ 4) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel forthe appellants are heard.on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No.37/2010. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.16,82,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate father, brothers and sisters of deceased Nirmala Bagh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 13.11.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.2,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- only. 8) In a motor accident claim-case, what is important is that, the compensation tb be av^arded 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. -.. M.A.C.No. 1010 of 2011 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nirmala Bagh, used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) As deceased Nirmala Bagh on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are her father, brothers and sisters, the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses cannot be found fault with in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 12) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the claimants are father, brothers and sisters of the deceased and in view of-the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, repori:ed in (2003) 8 SCC-731. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancem^nt ofthe compensatiQn awarded by the Tribunal. 0/ A.C.No. 1010 of 2011 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ^' Sdf- Chief Justice y'. subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge B-fl