f-7 c^^/ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH \AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. igsv / 2009 APPELLANTS ^(CLAIMANTSI k Sbagyfta Yasmin, W/o, Late Sheikh Kalimullah, Aged about 26 years o" ...^c^s ^- ^w^^^( >-^ u^ RESPONDENTS ^.2. Sheikh Shibgatullah, ^ S/o, Late Sheikh Kalimullah, Aged about 05 years 3, Sheikh Junaidullah, K^ S/o, Late Sheikh Kalimullah, Aged about 03 years (Appellants no. 2 SE 3 minors through mother Shagufta Yasmin) ^. Abida Begum, W/o, Late Sheikh GaniullaU, Aged about 60 years [All.Residents of Masanganj, Near Mahila Police Station, Bilaspur, Tehsil 85 District - Bilaspur (C.G.)] VERSUS l': Bhagwat Prasad alias Bablu Gond, S/o Mahettar Ram, Aged about 22 years, R/o Bhorthidih, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2.. M.M.Enterprises, through '*' Proprietor Mahendra Kumar Mittal, S/o Shri Madan Lal Mittal, Aged about 36 years, r/o, Naila Neher, Near Mandir, P.S. - Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^ L-—-•^»'*»--».a.fa.*^f.Kjfa-»-2rai|L^* A^oo i^yi- '^1 z5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDFtAKAR, J, Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 878 of2009 1 Shagufta Yasmin, w/o late Sheikh Kalimullah, aged about 26 years 2 Sheikh Shibgatullah, s/o late Sheikh Kalimullah, aged about 05 years 3 Sheikh Junaidullah, s/o Late Sheikh Kalimullah, aged about 03 years (Appellants No.2 & 3 minors through mother Shagufta Yasmin) 4 Abida Begum w/o late Sheikh Ganiullah, aged about SOyears (All residents of Masanganj, near Mahila Police Station, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Bhagwat Prasad @ Bablu Gond, s/o Mahettar Ram, aged about 22 yers, r/o Bhori:hidih, PS - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (CG) MM Enterprises, through Proprietor Mahendra Kumar Mittal, s/o Shri Madan Lal Mittal, aged about 36 years, r/o Naila Neher, Near Mandir, PS Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) Bhaijaan @ Abdul Gaffar, s/o Abbas Ali, aged about 56 years, r/o Darrighat, P.S. Masturi, district Bilaspur C.G. Memo ofaDDeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. 2 Present: Shri Adil Minhaz and Ms. Farah Minhaz, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. ORDER (28th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.61/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,60,000/- claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate widow, minor sons and mother of deceased Sheikh Kalimullah by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sheikh Kalimullah died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.10.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.CG-12/ZC-1407; as respondent No.2 M.M. Enterprises, was the owner of the above offending vehicle ^ Dumper, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Dumper were liable to pay compensation to the claimants, 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3ri of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.16,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sheikh Kalimullah in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- @ 6% per annum. 5) Shri Adil Minhaz and Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only. 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. ^s.'^^^^^Ssasesss^S £.i£sSS.ig" 4 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sheikh Kalimullah used to earn Rs.8,00,0/- per month from his mobile repairing shop, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any shop, much less a mobile repairing shop. For the reasons best known to the claimant no license or registration of the shop was produced before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants' dependencyalso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Sheikh Kalimullah was shown to be 38 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 15 for the age group between 36-40 years. , 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu