IQ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 795 of2007 Appellants 1. Parasnath @ Vishwanath Singh aged about 48 years, s/o. late Jagdish Singh 2. Smt. Manorama Devi Singh, aged about 47 years, wife of Parasnath Singh, Both at present resident of Telibandha Raipur, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Manoj Kumar Nag, aged 23 years, son of Joverdhan Nag, resident of Sarsara, P.S. Bargarh, district Bargarh (Orissa) Through Rashpal Singh Ghotra, son of Amarjeet Singh Ghotra, G.E. Road, Tatibandh Raipur district RaipurC.G. 2. Rashpal Singh Ghotra, aged about 35 years, son of Amarjeet Singh Ghotra, resident of G.E. Road, Tatibandh" Raipur, district Raipur C.G. 3. National Insurance Company Limited, through Mandal Prabandhak National Insurance Company Limited, opposite district Sahakari Bank G.E. Road, Raipur, district RaipurC.G. i ^CL^. ^ sj 'KffS.aai, g •t:< .ii'i ,ff <i&.r;S-s:' ,5? ,Ai/ .A.C.No. 795 of 2007 4. O.S.L. Logestic, through L.D. Goyal, House No. 1-8, 122 A.C.R. Avenue Ganpati, first Floor, Kolkata 73, (W.B.) through Bangal Maharastra Roadwej Tatibandh, Raipur C.G. 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Regional Office New India Insurance Company Limited Madina Manjil Kachahari Chowk, Raipur C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act Present: Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3, ORDER •th (26mSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Dheeraj Kumar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.07.2006, passed in Claim Case No.7/2006. 2) As against the compensation,pf Rs:25,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dheeraj Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 8.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. tf .*-^"' M.A.C.No. 795 of 2007 .A 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04E/7615, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal against the impugned award 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.5,000/- per month. By deducting 50% of Rs.5,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Dheeraj Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R. Pradhan, learnect counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in- awarding low compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- only. M.A.C.No. 795 of 2007 r\ 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Couri:s/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.3,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not reliable, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly discarded the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses, cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Dheeraj Kumar was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of tlre 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. 12) The multiplier of 11selected by the Tribunal is rather on the MAC.No. 795 of 2007 higher side 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 pf Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 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 multiplier 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. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge sr'~'bu