VA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (C) No. 1530 of 2009 Appellants Claimants Pawan Kumar Patel, s/o Late Shri Mayaram Patel, aged about 48 years Smt Radhabai Patel.w/o Pawan Kumar Patei, aged about 46 years Ku Khileshwari Patel, D/o Pawan Kumar Patel, aged about 18 years Onkar Patel, S/o Pawan Kumar Patel, aged about 06 years Appellant No.4 is minor represented by natural guardian and father Pawan Kumar Patel appellant No.1. All r/o Village Marar Kasahibahara, PO Charauda (Bandh) Thana Mahasamund, Tehsil and District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Respondents Jugal Kishore Kunwar, S/o Dhawleshwar Kunwar, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Gadhgapn, Thana Patkamal, District Baragarh (Orissa) (Driver of the offending vehicle Mahindra Max bearing Regd No.CG-05 A/6144) Kishor Kumar Khuntia, s/o Boto Kuntia, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Madamsilli, Thana Paikamal, District Baragarh (Orissa) (Registered Owner of the offending vehicle Mahindra Max bearing Regd No.CG-05 A/6144) Divisional Manager, United India tnsurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex Kutchery Chowk, Raipur .^ss^: /y'% \ i-......^..-.^ 't ^^^ ^ |: '^% j vv-y ^i....^^' MAC.No. 1530 of 2009 <2@ Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) (Insurer of the offending vehicle Mahindra Max bearing Regd No.CG-05 A/6144) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vasim Miya, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23rd August, 2011) The followjng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.09.2009, passed in Claim Case No.46/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,25,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, sister and brother of deceased Parmanand Patel by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as-compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^^•^^\\ '% / 6:,....,...-:,„.. 'l i vsff^^ 1 flv ^ ^. '^ l^s ^^.^ MAC.No. 1530 of 2009 ^ 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle Mahendra Max bearing registration No.CG-05 A /6144 liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Mahendra Max has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the claimants' dependency at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.36,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Parmanand Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petjtion tillthe date of actual payment. 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erre^l in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- only. 7) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India •^,::'!,i'T' %^..i'- •!^i ~^. 4 MAC.No. 1530 of 2009 %r Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Mahendra Max on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants, who are parents, sister and brother of the deceased Parmanand Patel. 8) Shri Vasim Miya, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Jugal Kishore Kunwar and No.2 Kishor Kumar Khuntia, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Mahandra Max also supported the award. 9) 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. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) As the claimants djd not produce any cogent and reliable evidence before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased even to the extent of Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month, we do not find the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month to be on the lower side. _12) -The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Parmanand Patel on the ^.^.^ "^ y--^ ,f "^ ^-^w^ MAC.No. 1530 of 2009 ^'^ date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs 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 Supreme Court Cases 121 . 13) As claimant No.1 Pawan Kumar Patel, father of the deceased in his cross-examination before the Tribunal admitted his age as 58 years, the multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55-60 years. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe 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 muttiplier selected. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma