«f-« SHI IM'I IATI JAN AKAR,J Cla!m3Hts Smt. Sarojni Diwan, W/o Chakradhar Dhwan, aged about 58 years. Shri Chakradhar Divi/an, S/o Mohandhar Diwan, Aged about 67 years. 5oth Resident of Qr. No.5/A Street No.68, Sector-6 Distt.Durg(C.G.). shllai 1 Sukhavindar Singh, S/o Ratan Sjngh Jaat Ageabout 34 years, Resldentlof Bharat Garh Thana - Rup Nagar, Djstt iup Nagar (Punjab) : ; 2 Smt Bhupendra Kaur, w/o Kanwaijeet Singh, Resident of 14 Ashok Nagar, Indore(MP) 3 United india Insurance Company Ltd., Sneh Na •, Kaner Building Firsf Floor Indore (MP) lotor Vehlcte Act Present : Shri Pradeep Saksena, counsel for the appeliants None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsei with Smt.^ Jaiswal, counsei for respondent No.3. .3 F? ••^'' rth ctooer- The followincs order of the Court was passed bv Th'he unfortunate parents of deceased Sunil Dhar Diwan are appeliants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Flrst AdditiQnai Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.09.2003, passed in Claim Case No.51/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,40,OOO/-, claimed by the appellants/clalmants, unfortunate parents of deceased Sunil Dhar Diwan, by fiiin.q a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death !n the motor accident on 08.02.2000, the Tribuna! awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1,52,000/- compensation aiong vvlth interest @ 9% per annum in the event of the insurer's faiiure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month ofthe passina ofthe award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held that deceased Sunii Dhar Diwan died on account of th injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.02.2000; the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing reaistratson No,MP-90KB/4902 contributed to the accident :to the extent of 40% and 60% respectiveiy; as the above offending vehide Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Uriited tndia Insurance Company Limlted; and the Insurance oiicvconditions, e compensation Company could not established any breach ofthe p( the Insurance Company was isabie to pay 60% of ths assessed bv the Tribunal. 4) T'ne Tribuna! assessed the Income of thf Rs.5,000/- per month. By deducting Rs.3,000/- towards t'ne personai expenses of the deceased, t'ne claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 10, the compensatlon was worked out to Rs.2,40,000 /-. As the driver of the Truck was heid liabie to the extent of 60%, the claimants were he!d entitied to receive 60% of Rs.2,40,000/- i.e. Rs.1,44.000/- on account of loss of dependency. sy awarding further sum of Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering; funeral expenses; and damage to the scooter, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation for the death of daimants' son Sunil Dhar Diwan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed pavment of interest on the sbove amount of compensation or'Rs. 1,52,000,'- @ 9% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month of the passing of the avvard. 5) Shri Pradeep Saksena, iearned counsei for the appeliants submitted that the Tribunal ha.s erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.5,000/- per month only; in deducting Rs.3,000/- towards persona! expenses of the deceased' ; In seiectino the iower multipiier of 10; in not awardlng ariy sum towards ioss of estate; and in directing conditionai payment of interest in the event of the insurer's fallure to deposlt the amount of compensation within one month ofthe passing ofthe award. 6) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior 'Counsel for respondent No.3 the Unlted india insurance ComDanv Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,52.000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation In the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal hoidina th^ deceased and the driver of the offending vehicie Truck responsible for the accident to the extent of 40% and 60% respectively is concerned, on a ciose scrutinv of the evidence of the evewitness examined by the claimants, AVW2 Dukhit Ram Dewangan; :the contents of the First Information Report: the posjtlon of the two vehicies l.e. Scooter of the deceased and the offending vehicle Truck on the road at the time of the accident: and the wldth of:the road as shown in the site pian prepared 'oy the police during the course or the investigation, we are satisfied that the Tnbunai has rightiy heid the deceased Scooterist and the driver of the offenaing vehicie Truck responsibia for the accident to the ewent of 40% ar 60%respectlvelv. n In a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais shoula be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation,. nor bonanza. 0\ 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation assessed and avvardeo' by the Tribunai is just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances ofthe present ca-se. 'aded that their son used to earn certificate (Ex.P/5) produced by estabiished the income of the Ji irue, tne clgimants pi Rs.6,000/- per month, the sai the ciaimants before the Tril deceased to fhe extent of Rs.5,000/- per month only. This certificate further. clarlfies that the salar/ or Rs.5,000/- of the deceased inciuded incentives also. 11) in t'n'is state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.5,000/- per month. 12) As the claimants' son dsceased Sunii Dhar D!wan!was resic!ing separately at Nagpur and the claimants are residing in ihllai, the deduction of Rs.3,000/- per month by the Tribunai, in pur opinion, is fullyjustified as in the city of Nagpur.Rs.3,000/- appears to be the minimum expenditure ofa person. 13) Th.e muitiplier of 10 seiected by the Tribunalcannot be found fault with in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of 'ihe deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Municipal Cprporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heid th|at in those cases where the claimants are parents or the deceased. the multipiier should never exceed 10. 14) Nevertheiess, the Tribunal certainiy has erred in i hot awardinq anv sum towards toss of estate and in directina oniv conditional payment of interest on the av»'arded amount of compensation !n the event of insurer's faiiure to pav the amount of compensation within one month ofthe passing ofthe award. 15) Considering ali the reievant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunai as ju-st and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of tr« present case, ; 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is aiiov/ed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- indusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, ^in ddition {o the sum of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded bythe Tribunai. 17} Respondent No.3 the Unitea' India insurance Company Limited is aranted three months' fime for depositing the totai sum of Rs.21,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- RJN.Chandrakar i Judge ' sd/- ChiefJustice subbu