1''•.-, ^•e~~'':"s;m5>, fs\^ <'^-; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants :ts lisc Appeal (0 No. 532 of 2010 1 Smt Bhuneshwari @ Degeshwari Sahu, \Nfo Late Bhushanlai Sahu, aged about 22 years, Occupation - Housewife 2 Yashkumar Sahu, s/o Late Bhushanlal Sahu, aged about 02 years (appellant No.2 being minor on behalf of through his !egal guardian mother Smt Bhuneshwari @ Degeshwari Sahu appeliantNo.1) 3 Lachhiram Sahu, s/o Late Vishram Sahu, aged about 50 years 4 Smt Vimla Bai Sahu, w/o Lachhiram Sahu, aged about 44 years, Occupation Housewife Al! r/o Village - Kodar, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsii & District Mahasamund (CG) Respondents Non-Claimants Ashwani Kumar Sahu, s/o Sunderlal Sahu, aged about 24 years, Occupation - Driver, r/o Village - Hicchha, Police Station - , Mahasamund, Tahsil & District - Mahasamund (CG) (Driver of vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No.CG 06/C/2104 & 2134) Thakurram Sahu, s/o Sonuram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, r/o Village- Hicchha, Potice Station - Mahasamund, Tahsii S District - Mahasamund (CG) (Registered Owner of vehicle Tractor & ^. WS'SmSSVCTSSCSEKS BlAUEiUtAuuniiunt! ^swis^^a. WIACNo.532of2010 Trolley bearing registration No.CG 06/C/2104&2134) The United India tnsurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No.CG 06/C/2104 & 2134) Miscellaneous Appeal uncter Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents. ORDER ird (03raAugust,2011) The foltowing 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, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.39/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunatewidow,minorson and parents of deceased Bhushanlal Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.02.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per A'1 II Mfli^P^SW^-^'Ttt^ai^^MVrL^f^t-L-WSSSS MACNo.532of2010 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 United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, bearing registration Nos.CG 06-C/2104 and CG 06-C/2134, 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.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.6,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.48,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,76,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,80,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Bhushanlal Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the clalm petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counset for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in —^- F MACNo.532of2010 assessing his income at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- only. 7) In a motor accident claim case what rs important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais 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. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bhushanlal Sahu used to earn Rs.250/- per day and Rs.7,500/- per month from his Kirana Shop and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. 10) Considering that deceased Bhushanlal Sahu was running a Kirana Shop in a small village Kodar in the district of Mahasamund, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunalat RS.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11) . The compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the fact that deceased Bhushanlal Sahu was running a petty Kirana Shop in a small village Kodar, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. :i~?\ > j MACNo.532of2010 © 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, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.ChaKdrakar Judge subbu 'v^aUiffSI'^'"i^:~P^V<'^y^i*v^ n~~ li>llii^H*i:f^h~"1^