Vw A HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRISUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal Np. 93 of 2005 Apeellants Respondents 1. Smt. Kalpana Chawla, w/o late Shiv Kumar Chawla, aged about 40 years. 2. Ishan Chawla s/o late Shiv Kumar Chawla, aged about 11 years, (minor) through his natural guardian, 'i.e. mother namely Smt. Kalpana Chawla Both R/o Tumgaon Chowk, Mahasamund, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ' through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Builidng, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. 2. Smt. Shail Mishra, w/o late Shailendra Mishra, aged about 42 years, 3 Ku. Sheetal Mishra, d/o late Shailendra Mishra, aged about 20 years, 4. Shivendra Mishra, S/o late Shailendra Mishra, aged about 17 , years, 5. Ku. Shivani Mishra, d/o late Shailendra Mishra, aged about 4 years, 6. Smt. Geeta Devi Mishra, w/o late Amarnath Mishra, aged about 85 years, Respondent No. 4 to 5 are minor, through : Guardian, their mother 'A, '§->•!, 1 .f w Smt. Shail Mishra, (respondent No.2) All R/o. Janta Quarter No.4, Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, distt. Raipur(C.G.) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. ORDER >th (08l"March,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 Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.11.2004, passed in Claim Case No.10/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.31,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor son of deceased Shiv Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 22.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,09,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel forthe appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred m assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month KS»S;,,;»',.!US°.:^. only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,09,500/- only. 4) 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. 5) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,09,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in fhe facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 6) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shiv Kumar used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month from his Kirana Shop, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income ofthe deceased to that extent. In fact, no documentary material was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any Shop at all. In this state of evidencg, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 7) 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. 8) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunalalso cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Shiv Kumar was shown to be 38 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) andOthers Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribed the multiplier of 15 for the age group between 36-40 years. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimahts' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 10) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. —..—-_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ^s^- subbu