e^v '^ »<tn"'"»t^'pffk ii ;is> 1. Smt. 'Rajkunwar sahu, widow of late Natthu Lal Sahu, aged about 39 years, 2. Himmat Lai Sahu, s/o late Sahu, aged about 20 years, Lat "'l.ll 3. Minor Jaggu Sahu, s/o Iste Natt'nu Lal Sahu, aged about 13 years, 4. Minor Kumari Dhaneshwari Sahu d/o late Natthu Lal Sahu, aged about 15 5. Minor Dinesh Kumar Sahu, s/o iate Natthu La! 'Sahu, aged about 12 years, ):- Minor Ku. Neetu Sahu D/o !ate Natthu Lal Sahu, aged about 1 2 years, Appellant No. 3,4,5,6 minors represented by their Naturai Guardian and IVIother Smt. RajKunwar Bai Sahu wd/o late Natthu Lal Sahu. All R/o .Sahu Para; Fafadih, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur C.G. Balwant Singh, S/o Brijt aged about 35 years, R/o Thana Ratanpur, District (Driver of the vehicle) Singh, sgaon, 2. Tripyrari ^.Sharan Tiwari @ Tripurai Sharma, s/o iate Kuldeep Tiwari, R/o MIG 91 Tatibandh Ihana Amamnaka, Raipur Tehsit & Distnict Raipur C.G. (Registered owner ofthe vehicle) ^r" 3. The United India Insursnce Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Krishna Complex, In- front of Kutehery, Raipur C.G. (Insurer ofthe Vehicte) Present : • Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. Shrj Sahjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ith The following order of the Court was passed This is claimants' appeai. for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'): vide award dated 13.05.2005, passed in Claim Case No.54/20Q4. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,85,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Natthu Lal Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act for his death in the motor accident on 18.10.2QQ2, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,47,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ~t "•1 filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred'in not accepting theclaimants' evidence|abQUt the income of t'.' : '~i I.!' SA^P1J l:ii,,.i3]|3*.--~ '2 the deceased and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,47,000/- only. 4) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, learned counse! for respondent No.3 the United India insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,47,000/- awarded by the .Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of fhe present case. 5) Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Balwant Singh, driver of the offending vehicle also supported the iward. 3) In a motor accident claim, case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais 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 shalt examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,47,QOO/- 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 Natthu La! Sahu used to earn Rs.8 -10,000/- per month, no reliable and cogent evidence was ,led in that behalf before the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased bythe Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- ^^^:L^'^^.^?S^ i^SS^^Basliia ^/ •^;1- paama 'i!'f!Ti ^s-^ 3) The claimants' depen.dency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards personal expenses ofthe deceased. 10) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribuna! eannot be said to be on the lower side in view of the fact that deceased Natthu Lal Sahu was aged about 42 years on the date of the accident. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the sssessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the muitiplier 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/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge