"^••i^KsSS&S?!i- APPELLANT M.A.(C)No.-5^/^ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MAIN RQAD JAGDALPUR, DISTT.- BASTER Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT S ^i. KALINGRAM S/0 JHITAKU, AGE 40 7..f-u.'t~^ YRS. ^>-^iS^a ^ ."'7._ _._...._. )...^N"*n.... ^ MANGANI W/0 KALINGRAM, AGE 38 ^·^"wl^ "".^^" YRS" .-•^'^ ^ ^...--""v t^BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATRALI, UISTRICT - BASTER(C.G-) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- ».» 3. SHEKH RAKIB S/0 SHEKH HABIB, RESIDENT OF SHUBHASH CHOWK, KESHJ^AL (DRIVER & OWNER)?^7-T-<'^^/'/C^ ^ ' ^ '^"y-^-e- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 %^ ^_A - ^- ^ . -^ s' - ^> • ^ }S ^•^F^'^aV'l. F >li< •n,l^»i The Oriental Insurance Co. ipur, Main Road, Jaadal tastai 1. Kaiingram S/o Jhitaku, A< Yrs. 2. Mar Yrs. £SI3J I >/NON- 3. ii^U 1 r\S; District Bastar fC.G.' Shekh Rakib S/o Resident of Shubhash Chowk, Keshkal (Driver & 3star ^.. rfi Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counse! for the ^iani. (17th lv Guota. C.J. •Tf^ f\y^ isrtnffiE ;i U .^E E CiUI i tl ic Court was oassed Sudhir Agravral, !earned counsel for the appellant is ISIS Thi; 'surer's appeal against the award dated 22-11 -2007, passed by Additional IVotor Accident Claims Tribuna! (F.T.C.), Kondagaon, Dlstt. Bastar in Ciaim Case No. 90/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.25,00,000./- claimed by the claimants for the death. of their only son - Raghu aged about 18 vears In the motor acoident on 04-12-2006 when he was dashed by the offending vehicle - Car bearing Registration No. C.G. 07/Z.G./6298 resuiting in multipte serious injuries to ciaimants' son - Raghu, who succumbed to those injuries the same day, the Tribuna! awarded a sum of Rs.3,39,800/- as compensation v/ith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Sudhir Agrav.'al, leamed counset for the appellant submltted that appellant - Insurance Company is challenglns only t'ne quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunai in t'nis appeal as permlssion under Section 170 of the IVIotor Ve'nicles Act was granted. Learned counsel furt'ner submitted that the Tribunal has erred 'm deducting oniy 1/3ro of the income of the deceased tov/ards his personal expenses, whereas in view of the dicturn of the A.oex Court in the case of Louis ;.rs! t) T.A.C.208(SCl, 2/3rB of the incoiTie of the deceased ouaht to have been dedi >d towards the personai expenses. ia'i^rr'A?^ is leaf'i counse! further submitted th.at the multipEier of 16 i; on the higher side as t'ne claimants v/ere the parents of fhia .! i'i.i- 'V: ieceased and in viev"/ of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case ^3: of Muni' >fGi r another, reported in (2i have exceeded 10. 13) 8 SCC-731, the muttiplier should It has CQms vidence th; ;aal the only son of the claimants. Deceased - Raghu wss aged about 19 years and used to work as a labourer. In our opinion, the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.2,600/- per month on the assumption that he v/ouid be getting work on!y for 26 days in a month and Rs.31,200/- per annum, does not cail for any interference in this appesl. !n fact, the appeilant - Insurance Company is not chailenging the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased by the TribunaL What amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses v.'iii depend on the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. !n the facts of the present case, we are fully satisfied that the Tribu.nai has rightly deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as there were three members in the family i.e. the deceased and his parents. Learned counsel for the appeila-nt could not point out any such le present case which would have than 1/3 towards the personal peculiar factor prevailin jusfined deduction of 7. As deceased - Raghu was the only son of the claimants, the dictum pf the Apex Court in the case of Donat Loiiis 1 y. ''*.. 9 i ' ^•n^. 1. ^ 'W^^F ^i distinguishable on facts is of no help to the appeilant - insurance 8. ex Court ii cass (Supra) taking note of the fact that the parents in the said case had their own income held that muitiplier of 10 was appropriate in the said case. in the present case, the income of the father of the deceased has not been established by the appeiiant - insurance Company. in the absence of any positive evidence about the income of the father of the deceased, the seiection of the multiplier of 16 by the Tribunai cannot be found fault with on ths basis of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mi 9. That apart, in a motor claim case vvhat is important is that t'ne compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal shou.id be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of ie case. It s'nould neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 10. The compensation of Rs.3,39,800/-, awarded by t'ne Tribunal to the claimants for the death of their only son Raghu in the motor accident, when examlned in the context of the fact that in the case of Corporaffon of Greater Laxm. another(Supra) also t'ne Apex Court found the ,3,00,000/-, in the year 2003, to be just and 1 //• 1 i; %l "^^s's-9""^ ', ^ Subbu N. proper compensation to be awarded to the parents of the inai tiii isea in tne saia case, we are ipensatson of Rs.3,39,800/- .'ear 2007 cannot be termed as excessive or bonanza so as to r'arded bv the Tribunai in the warrant interference in this appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company chalienging the quantum of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 11. The a.DDeal, thersfore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereb.v' dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice SA'- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \: