^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 280 of 2009 Appellants Applicants 1 Gunu Ram, S/o Rajaram Kewat, Aged about 42 years 2. Sunita W/o Gunu Ram Kewat, Aged about 36 years, Both are R/o Village - Mudiyadih, P.S. & Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Non-Applicants Shivlal Dewangan @ Shiv S/o Devnath Dewangan, Aged about 38 years, R/o Bhilaigarh P.S. & Tahsil - Bhilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) DriverofJeep No.C.G.-07-ZD/9140 Gulal Prasad, S/o Devdhar Dewangan, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bhilaigarh, P.S. & Tahsil Bhilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) OwnerofJeep No.C.G.-07-ZD/9140 Indrakumar, S/o Motilal Kewat, Aged about 28 years, R/o Mudiadih, P.S. & Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Driver of Tractor No. CG-04-ZG- 0930 and Trolley No.0931 Pyarelal S/o Khikh Ram Kaiwartya, Aged about 35 years, R/o Mudiadih, P.S. & Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Owner of Tractor No.CG-04-ZG- 0930 and Trolley No. 0931 ^\' ^'^^?"^-:t^; .A.(C)No. 280 of 2009 z'^ 5. The New India Insurance Company, Branch Office - Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Insurer of Tractor IVIemo of appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri A.P. Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.1 None for respondents No.2,3 and 4. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER •th (16InAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceesed Karan Kewat are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No.30/2007. 2) As againstthecompensation ofRs. 17,39,500/-claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Karan Kewat, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,10,0007- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date cf actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Karan Kewat died on -\ M.A.(C)No. 280 of 2009 I^ 'wy account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos. C.G.-04ZG/0930 and CG-04ZG/0931; though the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, as the Tractor-Trolley was being plied in breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Tractor- Trolley. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Karan Kewat in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri A.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the /ssv^. //^ ~\ 1 'SSS-^SS^ .A.(C)No. 280 of 2009 ^ claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-only. 6) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Tractor-Trolley as the same was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 7) Shri A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Shivlal Dewangan @ Shiv, driver of the other vehicle Jeep also supported the award. 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 compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Karan Kewat, used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month as Auto-Mechanic, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the \ ^:^^^ '^•^^f 'v.,dSy l?S533i-,E^"~ M.A.(C)No. 280 of 2009 ^ Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Karan Kewat was aged about 20-21 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour, in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that deceased Karan Kewat on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus 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 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 14) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held M.A.(C)No. 280 of 2009 n^ that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20.000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation for the death of their son deceased Karan Kewat in the motor accident. 16) The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,30,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar judge