IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A fa.No4^^ 72008 APPELLANTS (Claimants) ,.y^^l:::i5>/ ^gife^' RESPONDENTS Insurer n_ 3. c" Amarjeet Kaur W/o. Late Gurmel Singh, aged about 50 years, Harpal Singh, S/o. Late Gurmel «- Singh, aged about 30 years, Both Resident of Sadak No. 18, In front of Uncle Hotel, Steel Nagar ^- Camp Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni Bhilai, Tahsil and District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Kamaljeet Singh, S/o. Ramsingh, aged about 36 years, R/o. 119 r^ Sundarnagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Tahsil and District -Durg (C.G.) Ram Singh S/o. Dilip Singh, aged (not mentioned), R/o. 119 Sundarnagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Tahsil and District -Durg (C.G.) Branch Manager, The New India ^ Insruance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Upon Dena Bank, Nandani Road, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORS VEHICHLE ACT. 1988 FOR INHANCEMENT •\ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 637 of 2008 1 Amarjeet Kaur w/o late Gurmel Singh, aged about 50 years, 2 Harpal Singh, s/o late Gurmel Singh, aged about 30 years, Both resident of Sadak No.18, in front of Uncle Hotel, Steel Nagar Camp Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni Bhilai, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1 Kamaljeet Singh, s/o Ramsingh, aged about 36years, r/o 119, Sundarnagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. 2 Ram Singh s/o Dilip Singh, aged (not mentioned) R/o 119 Sundarnagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. Insurer 3 Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Upon Dena Bank, Nandini Road, Bhilai, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati and Shri Mohd. Tariq Haider, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (21stJune,2011) ^rSiBft'-i j!*'" j6 /'/^ st ^. ^ ^. ^f' ^s^ SKSS"'" ./' ^••Y 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, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.115/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.29,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and major son of deceased Gurmel Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 12.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,60,088/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% 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 deceased Gurmel Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.07.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Indica Car bearing registration NO.C.G.-04/A-9183; as the above offending vehicle Indica Car on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company coutd not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. \ PT .-CSS'^:**^, ,.St ~vfh .ff' /-a"si^ ^ vr^ '•S €:!^^^!^-. - ^ '•^^a^S^^ ',- ^a»»,..^:^'' 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.5,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,334/- per month and Rs.40,008/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,008/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,40,088/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,60,088/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gurmel Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,60,088/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri D.N. Prajapati and Shri Mohd. Tariq Haider, learned 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.5,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.'4,60,088/- only. 6) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Indica Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,60,088/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. '<; ;~S.. ''.''^" ...r:: ^? 7) 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. 8) Now'we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,60,088/- 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 Gurmel Singh used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month from his transport business, in the income-tax return produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, the annual income of deceased Gurmel Singh was shown to be Rs.49,500/- only. The Tribunal taking a liberal view in the matter assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month. 10) 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. 11) As deceased Gurmel Singh admittedly was aged about 51 years on the date ofthe accident,'the multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others VersusDelhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in •;'K._ 1: (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 11 has been prescribed forthe age group between 51-55 years. 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs.20,000/- under other heads. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu