HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.1244 of 2009 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1. 2. 3. Smt Manisha Bai, w/o late Shri Mahendra Sonkar, age about 25 years Ku Anjali, D/o late Shri Mahendra Sonkar, age about 3 years K Tikal, D/o late Shri Mahendra Sonkar, age about 1 year Appellants No.2 & 3 through her legal guardian appellant No.1 mother Chetan Das, s/o Manrakhan, age 50 years Tarabai, w/o Shri Chetan Das, age about 48 years All r/o village - Amlidihi, Tola-gaon, Post— Rudgaon, Thana - Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon VERSUS Kanakram, S/o Palluram Nishad, age about 35 years, R/o Village Arjuni, Thana - Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver) Tarachand Jain, S/o. Bhairodan Jain, age "about 48 years, r/o Village - Arjuni, Thana Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Owner) Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Parakh Bhavan, Station Road, Durg District Durg (CG) (Insurance Company) tf gg "v^y" *g s ^Sxsf' Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehjcle Act Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey,counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 and2. Shri ShreekumarAgrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (14th July, 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.05.2009, passed in Claim Case No.84/2008. 2) As against thecompensation of Rs.23,30;000/-claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Mahendra Sonkar, by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 03.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,69,444/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition-till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration 'No..C.G.-04ZB/2865 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. vm .^/ ^ •s"~f 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.5,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,333/- per month and Rs.39,996/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.39,996/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,59,944/-. By awarding furi:her sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,69,444/- as compensation to the daimants for the death of deceased Mahendra Sonkar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,69,444/- @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month; the claimants' dependency at Rs.39,996/- per annum; in selecting the lower multiplier of 14; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,69,444/-only. 6) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, theJMew India Insurance Company Lirriited, the insurer of theoffending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.5,69,444/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mahendra Sonkar, who was only a vegetable seller. '..•/ •' ,-f 7) Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck 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.5,69,444/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Deceased Mahendra Sonkar was shown to be 28 years of age in his postmortem report. The claimants are his widow; two minor daughters aged about 3 years and one year; father aged about 50 years and mother aged about 48 years. It has come in the evidence of AW/1 Manisha Bai, widow of deceased Mahendra Sonkar that the father ofthe deceased has agricultural land in the village and he has his own independent income from the agriculture. As the mother of the deceased was essentially dependent on her husband who has his own independent income, neither the mother nor the father were adually dependent on the income of the deceased. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Mahendra Sonkar used to earn Rs.10,000-15,OOO/- per month as vegetable seller, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Subbu 11) The compensation of Rs.5,69,444/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the fact that it was claimants' case itself that deceased Mahendra Sonkar was a vegetable seller, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 12) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge •'r -.;: