^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. \:'-; Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 203 of 2010 1. Smt. Anand Kunwar, widow of late Gulab Singh, aged about 29 years, 2. Minor Dibal Singh, aged 10 years, son of late Gulab Singh 3. Minor Ajay Kumar, son of late Gulab Singh, aged about 8 years, 4. Minor Pushpendra Kumar, son of late Gulab Singh, -aged about 4 years, 5. Minor Bhupendra Kumar, son of late Gulab Singh, aged about 9 years, Appellant No.2 to 5 are minor and presented this appeal through their legal guardian mother Smt. Anand Kunwar widow of late Gulab Singh. 6. Smt. Jagmati wife of Puran Singh, aged about 55 years, 7. Puran Singh, son of Bansai Kanwar, aged about 60 years, All are r/o. village Chainpur, P.S. Kartala, district Korba C.G. VERSUS 1 Bhuneshwar Singh, son of Puran Singh, aged about 30 years, r/o village Chainpur, police station Kartala, district Korba C.G. (Driver of the offending vehicle) ? Ajit Kumar Gabhel, son of late Labho Ram Gabhel, MAC.No. 203 of 2010 ^6r a^ R/o. village Devri, police station Sakti, district Janjgir Champa C.G. (Owner of the offending vehicle) 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, T.P. Nagar, Korba C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri PK Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri SK Guha, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ind (22naSeptember,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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.312/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.28,55,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Gulab Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. r'T^ ,4-^"^ ^. ' I ^ !':^ MAC.No. 203 of 2010 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos. C.G.-11A/3001 and C.G.-11A/3012 respectively, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley 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.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 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gulab Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri PK Patel, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- only. M.A.C.No. 203 of 2010 « ^N^MB^ 7) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, referring to the contents of the requisition for postmortem examination (Ex.P/5) contended that in fact deceased Gulab Singh was travelling in the Tractor- Trolley and the owner of the Tractor-Trolley did not pay any extra premium for covering the risk of the persons travelling in the Tractor-Trolley, the Tribunal has erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) Shri SK Guha, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Ajit Kumar Gabhel, the owner of the Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, 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.2,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 11) So far as the Tribunal's finding holding the insurer of the Tractor-Trolley liable to pay compensation to the claimants is concerned, since the Insurance Company has neither filed any appeal against the award nor any cross-objections in this appeal, we do not deem it necessary to examine that aspect of the matter .^^;,.^ /-4.. ^ ^ii^ '^ ',? ^ MAC.No. 203 of 2010 in this appeal of the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 12) Deceased Gulab Singh was shown to be aged about 32 years in his postmortem report. The claimants are his widow, minor children and parents. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Gulab Singh used to earn Rs.100/- per day as labour/ hamal, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.100/- per day. 13) Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, the multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side. 14) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.35,000/- under other heads. 15) The compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17) No order as to costs. ____ subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge