^^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR MA(C) No. 555 of 2009 Smt. Buiu Maitra & Others Vs. Udairam Verma & Others Post of pronouncement ofjudgment and orders on^/04/2009. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge .1 HIGHjCPURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA(C)No. 555 of 2009 Appellants Claimants Respondents Noo-CSajmarrts ^. 1. Smt. Bulu Maitra Wd/o Late Hemendra Kumar Maitra, aged about 36 years. 2. Ku. Sandhya Maitra D/o Hemendra Kumar Maitra, aged about 16 years. 3. Kamal Maitra S/o Hemendra Kumar Maitra,aged about 11 years. Minor appellant No. 2& 3 through legal guardian appeilant No. 1, Mother Bulu Maitra. Al! R/o New Market, Mana Camp, Thana, Mana Camp, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). Versus 1. Udairam Verma S/o Aatmaram Verma R/o Near Banjari Mandir, Rawanbhata, Thana Khamtarai, Tahsil and District Raipru (CG). 2. Shrichand Premchandani S/o Shobhraj Chandani R/o Vidya Vigyan School, Ravigram, Telibandha, District Raipur(CG). 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisionalv0fifce No. 2, RDA Buiiding, Bajrang Market, Raipur District Raipur (CG). Through Divisionai Manager, divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (CG). 4. Subhash Das S/o Nepal Chandra Das, occupation owner of the vehicielndica Car, R/o Janta Dashkarma Bhandar, New Market Mana Camp, Bus Stand, F ManaCamp, Raipur(CG). j 5. The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No; 1, Raipur, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, GE Road, Raipur (CG). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.V r-t:' 1. 2. Present : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate for the appellant. None for therespondents, ORDER (Passed on o<o dav of April, 2009) Learned counse! forthe appeilants is heard on admission. Thg instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the Vilth Adaitional Claims Tribunal,Raipur (for short 'Tribunal') vide award dated 28.02.2008, passed irzclaim case No. 69/2007. The daimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 (fbr short 'the Act, 1988') claiming compensation of Rs. 24,50,000/- (Twenty Four Lakh & Fifty Thousands) for his death in the motor accident which was occurredon 26.12.2005 arising out of the collision between indica Car bearing registration Mo. CG 04 ZD/3540 and Truck bearing registration No; CG 04 J/0220. The deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, being the occupant of Indica Car, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants in their claim petition pleaded that deeeased Hemendra Kumar Maitra was agedabout 43 years and used to earn Rs. 8000/- per month, by running Pan Bhandar and STD/PCO. The Owner of the Truck pieaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by indica Car Driver. The respondent No. 3/insurer of the Truck pieaded that the respondent No. 1 was not having vaiid driving licensewhich is within the knowledge of respondent No. 4 and therefore, the insurance company was not iiable. The respondent No. 4 pleaded that the Car was covered by the poiicy Issued by the respondent No. 5 and therefore, ciaim is to be dismissed against t'ne respondent No. 4. The respondjent No. 5 pleaded that the claimants have claimed the compensation in fact against the Driver/owner/insurer of the Truck and therefore, the respondent No. 5 is not liable for any compensation. Learned Tribunal framed issues and after a dose scrutiny of the evidence ied by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to wrpng parking of the Truck and further heid the Driver/Owner and Insurer of the Truck liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal accessed income of the deceasedat Rs. 5000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 5000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the Tribunai accessed the daimants dependency at Rs. 3333/- per month i.e. Rs. 39,996/- per annum by applying multipiier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 5,99,940/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards consortium to widow and Rs. 5000/- each to both children as compensation towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6.21.940/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra in the said motor accident against the respondent No. 1 to 3. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 6 percent per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 6,21,940/- from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8. Shri A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in assessing the income of Rs. 5000/- per month and the multiplierapplied of 15, as according to him, the income ought to have been assessed Rs. 8000/- per month and also the multiplier ought to have been applied of 18 in terms of lind Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Jn a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensatibn to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 10. Considering thepleadings and the evidence led by the parties and also considering the age of deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, i.e. 43 years at the time of accident, the income assessed at Rs. 5000/- per month and the multiplier ^ ^ r^ •^. Sahu of 15 applied by the Tribunal, cannot be found faultwith, rather it is on hjgher side, in view of dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in case ofNew India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana and Others (Reported in 2007 (3) SCC 538) wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to beproper for the deceased, which was aged about 33 years. 11. The aforementioned ratio of Supreme Court has also been applied by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Bhanmati Bai Sahu & Others V. Sudhakar Kumar & Others. (Reported in 2009 (1) CGLJ 317). 12. For the reasons mentioned herejnabove, l do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income or on account ofthe multipiier applied by the Tribunai. 13. The appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is therefbre has no merit the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed summarily. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ^: