en-I cOURT OF cHHATTIseARH, AT BILASPUR‘ )- l' DIVlSl0N BENCH VCORA'M: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTmA, C.J. ' HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAKJ I Appellants Claimants Misc Appea! No. 471 of 2008 1 Suresh Agrawal. aged about 44 years, ‘ Sip Shri Radheshyam 'Agrawal 2 Smt Kiran_ Agrawal, W!o Shri Suresh Agrawal, Aged about 40 years Both Rio Gani Line, ‘Tahv a. Dist Rajnandgaon (CG) VERsus 1. Punaji, ageda-bout 31 years, S/o Shri .Tulsiram More, R/o Timbhuma',‘ PS Thamgaon, Dist Buldana Presént Address GE Road, Mohba Bazar, Raipur 2 Ranjit Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Laxman Singh, Rlo GE Road, Mohba‘ Basar, Dist Raipur (CG) ‘ (insurer) 3 The United lndia Insurance Company ' Limited, through Branch Manager, Kamptee' Line, Respondents Non-claimants (Driver) (Owner) Branch r Office, Rajnandgaon Miscelianeous gggeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicie Act Present : Shri Anand Shukia, counsel forthe appellants, Shri Senjay S Agrawal, counsel for respondent-No.3. ORDER (4"‘ January, 2011) m The following order of the Court was passed by 'Rajeev Gupta, c.J. This is ‘claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded byrthe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.‘ Rainandgaon, (for short “the Tribunal') 'vide award dated 04.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.04/2004. \2) As‘against the compensation, of Rs.44,20,00DI-, claimed by >the appellants/claimants unfortunate parenta of deceased Aveen I Agrawal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehioles Act for his death In the motor accident on 09 11 1999 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per 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 that the claimants’ son Aveen Agrawal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident on 09 11 199 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivmg of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration r No.MP-23-DA/2422, as the above offending vehicle Truck on the > date of the accident was insured with the United indie insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was . liable to pay compensation to the claimants; 4) As the rapondents 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.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum. By deducting ‘1/3” of Rs.18,000/- towards the personai, expenses of ”the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 2,000!— perannum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000l- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to i Rs;1 ,80,000l-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum‘ of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Aveen ' Agrawal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of ~ Rs.2,00,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the ctaim - petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Anand Shukla, teamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal. has erred in not accepting the - claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1 ,5001- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum oniy; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only. 7) - Shri Sanjay Sr Agrawal, teamed counsel for respondent No.3, the United India insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and‘contended that the compensation of #o Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8} in a motor accident claim case what is important ts that the‘ compensation to be awarded by the Courts l Tribunate shoutd 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;2,00,000/-‘ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. . 10) The claimants pleaded that their son Avee‘n Agrawai was t a aged about 21 years on the date of the accident, but the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in the mark-sheetlcertiticate produced before the Tribunal was 01 .01 .1982 meaning thereby that the deceased on the date of accident‘le 09.11.1999 was aged about 17 years 11 months. Though the claimants pleaded that their son Aveen Agrawai used to eam more than Rs.1 ,00;000/~ per annum from agriculture, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agricultural land at all. in this state of evidence 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 on its own estimate at Rs.1,.500/- per month and Rs. 1 8,000/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3” of _ the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though <r/ o the deduction in that behalf‘could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the fact that deceased ‘xAveen Agrawal was un-married on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheet Ahamed and others Vs Mohammad :Jameei and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 12) The muitipiier of 15 selected by the Tribunat is aiso on the higher side in view of the fact that the ciaimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 sec-731, wherein it was held that in ~ those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased. the multiplier should never exceed 10 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not tind any scope for > enhancement of the compensation awarded by‘the Tribunal. 14) The appeal (tiled by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . padma 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/— ’3 Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice r Judge