HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Ap^eilants ResBondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1201 of2009 1. Smt. Bhavana Thapa aged about 28 years, wd/o late Rajesh Thapa. 2. Ku. Ambika Thapa aged about 5 years d/o late Raj'esh Thapa, (appellant no.2 minor represented through natural guardian mother Smt. Bhavna Thapa appellant no.1) Both r/o Tikarapara, Raipur tahsil & district Raipur C.G. Claimants VERSUS 1 Ummedram Yadav aged about 48 years, s/o Bhaiyalal Yadav, (contable No.499) 4th Battalion S.A.F, (Chhattisgarh Armed Police Force) Mana Camp, thana Mana Camp, Raipur tahsil & district Raipur C.G. (Driyer^fvehLcieJMo,C.G.03/02351 2 Additional Inspector General of Pol.'ce (F/P), G.B. - Police Headquarters, Raipur C.G. LQwner^fvehicle No.C.G.03/0235) 3 Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, G.G. Government, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 4 Government of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur C.G. r JSK?^! .—-A<»^\ M.A.C. No. 1201 of 2009 5 Smt. Shakuntala Thapa aged about 65 years, wd/o late Shamsher Bahadur Thapa, r/o Manegaon, Bada Patthar, Ranjhi, Jabalpur C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act. Present: , Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the appellants. . Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 though served. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER (07th December, 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 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.05.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 08/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughter of deceased Rajesh Thapa, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 09.06.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,81,440/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) , Jhe Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before Jt held deceased Rajesh Thapa died on account of the ^^r^ ^^ "%>»<. "-c[ws!v"fS I.A.C. No. 1201 of 2009 I injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.06.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.-03/-0235; as the above offending vehicle Jeep belonged to the State Government, the driver of the Jeep and the State Government were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,360/- per month and Rs.76,320/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.76,320/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.50,880/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.50,880/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.6,61,440/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,81,440/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajesh Thapa in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.6,81,440/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. . • 6) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,360/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,81.440/- only. ^iMIBKs^. M.A.C. No. 1201 of 2009 w. x 7) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Ummedram Yadav, the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.6,81,440/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for respondent No.5 Smt. Shakuntala Thapa, mother of deceased Rajesh Thapa supported the submissions advanced on behalf ofthe appellants. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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.6,81,4407- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Deceased Rajesh Thapa on the date of the accident was working as Constable in Police Force of Chhattisgarh. His pay-slip (Ex'.P/7) reveals that the basic pay was Rs.3,950/- per month whereas dearness allowance was Rs.2,410/-. As the other allowances of Rs.30/-, 20/-, 18/- and 100/- were not of regular-and definite nature, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly excluded these amounts while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,360/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.6,360/- per month. I: M.A.C. No. 1201 of 2009 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) Considering that appellant No.1 Smt. Bhavana Thapa, widow of deceased Rajesh Thapa has admittedly been provided compassiopate appointment by the State Government on account of the death of her husband in the motor accident, the multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with. 14) The Apex Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5256, while considering the effect of the fact of compassionate appointment to one of the claimants by the employer of the deceased observed in paras 12 and 13: "12. But we find that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. It is pointed out that respondent No.1 was getting Rs.4,700/- p.m. and a residence has been provided to her and actually the compassionate appointment was given immediately after the accident. ^ 13. In view of what has been stated above, the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable. However, the accident took place more than 14 years back and it would/ - not be desirable to send the jmatter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. A sum of rupees five lakhs has been deposited vide this Court's order dated 1.11.2004. We are of the considered view that in view of the background facts, it is just and proper that the sum of ' Rupees five lakhs already deposited shall be permitted to b§withdrawn by the claimants in full and final settlement I1 •&, '^ ss- §s ^v^y l.A.C. No. 1201 of 2009 ^ y^. of the claim relatable to the death of the deceased. It is for the Tribunal to fix the quantum of fixed deposit and the amount to be released to the claimants." 15) The Apex Court, thus, found Rs.5,00,000/- as just and proper compensation in the above quoted dictum of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. (supra), where the widow of deceased was provided compassionate appointment by the employer of the deceased and was getting salary of Rs.4,700/- per month. 16) In the present case also, admittedly appellant No.1 Smt. Bhavana Thapa, widow of deceased Rajesh Thapa has been provided compassionate appointment by the Police Department of the State Government. 17) The compensation of Rs.6,81,440/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. (supra), 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. 18) 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. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 8