HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. ADpetiants Misc. ADpeal (C) No. 578 of2Q06 1 Smt Rekha Bais, Wd/o Late Kanhaiya La! Bajs, aged about 36 years 2 Ku Neelam Bais,aged 17years, D/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Bais 3 Neeiesh Kumar Bais, aged about13 years, S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Bais 4 Praveen Kumar Bais, aged about 10 years, S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Bals No.2, 3 & 4 minors through natural guardian mother appeliant No.1 Smt Rekha Bais, all resident of Mana Basti, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (CG) Respondents VERSUS Palas Chand Pal, aged 38 years, S/o Shri Jyotish Chandpal, resident of: Through Saddam Traveis, Near Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) Taufik Ahmad, S/o Abdu! Haq Resident of Through Saddam Travels, Near Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) United india Insurance Company Llmited, through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Krishna Comp'ex, Jai! Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) Mlsc.ADpeal under Section 173 of the IVlotor Vehicles Act aai TB. Present: Shri R Pradhan and IVIs Sashi Bareth, counse! for the appellants. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Ms Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >nd (22naFebruary,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 12th AdditiQna! ^4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 18/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Kankaiya Lal Bais, by Tiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 07.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on aclose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kankaiya Lal Bais diedon account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.08.2004, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bys bearing registration No.C.G.04-E/0364; as the above offending vehlde '-^•^:,\ Bus, on the.date ofthe accidentwas insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fited any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attajnedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- perannum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under otherheads, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of deceased Kankaiya Lal Bais in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the c^ate Qf filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 6) Shri R Pradhan and Ms Sashi Bareth, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting. the Claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.4,000/- per month ^lgl Lftllii 4 & 1-\ only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.5,00,000/-onty. 7) Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Ms Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance company on the other hand submitted that the Tribunai has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensatjon to the claimants. 8) . 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 compensationin the facts and circumstances of the case. It shoutd neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Kankaiya Lal Bais used to earn Rs.4,500-5,000/- per month from newspaper agency; Rs.2,500/- per month by working as motor mechanic; and Rs.15,000/- per annum from his agriculturat land, the evidenceled in that behaif was not of clinching nature. No license or registration was produced beforethe Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any automobile repair shdp. The extent of agriculture land hdld by the deceased was iess than one acre. The exact income from newspaper agency was also not established before the < Tribunal. In this state of gtlK ^-:it:f c. evidence,we do not find any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/-perannum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deductingthe usual 1/3rd ofthe income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higherside considering that deceased was aged about 45-50 years on the date of the accident. 13) 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 muJtiplier selected. 14) The appeal.filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge