HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 528 of 2010 1. Santosh Nand, s/o Chintamani Nand, aged about 49 years, caste Ganda, occupation Nothing 2. Ku. Malita Nand, s/o Santosh Nand, aged about 18 years, caste Ganda, occupation student, Both r/o village Dumerpali, post office Baya, police station Kasdol, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Ghurrau Bhoi, s/o Manglu Bhoi, aged about 46 years, occupation Driver, r/o village Bichiya, police station Saraipali, tahsil Saraipali, district Mahasamund C.G. (Driver of vehicle Truck 709 bearing registration NO.C.G.12/ZB/0351) 2. J.J. Naik s/o C.V. Nayak, aged about 50 years, occupation -owner of truck, r/o permanent address behind the HTPP Market, Darri, Korba, district Korba C.G. (Registered owner of vehicle Truck 709 bearing registration NO.C.G.12/ZB/0351) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck 709 bearing registration No.C.G.12/ZB/0351) Appealunder Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicle Act. ^ i-^asnsittn^Brte&^Ss^^^ Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya and Shri P.K. Tulsyan, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (22nd July, 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.04.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 195/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate father and sister of deceased Aashamoti @ Aashu Nand, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 23.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of aictual payment. 3) Shri Shivendu Pandya and Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- only. 4) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award ••.?^^".;;...,^ ^ and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) 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. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses though the deduction in that behalfcould have been to theextent of50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Aashamoti @ Aashu Nand on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2Q09) 6 SCC 121. subbu 9) The multiplier of10 is peri'ectly in line with the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the daimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as tocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakas- Judge