•^^ ^ A.F MIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants ResDondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 90 of 2006 1 Smt Samarin Bai, W/o Sunder Singh aged 45 years 2 Sunder Singh,S/o Late Koli Singh, Aged 48 years (Both are residents at village - Rogbahri, PS Balco, Distt Korba CG) VERSUS 1. Mangal Singh, S/o Anjor Singh, R/o Village - Rogbahri, PS Balco, Distt Korba CG 2. Branch Manager, through - National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Minu Comlex, Kosabadi, Korba Distt Korba CG MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri MK Baeg, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (16th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. •^ ^ .: ''39% j ^.. 'I^ This is claimants' appeal for enhancement.of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.05.2006, passed in Claim Case Nc. 153/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.54,03,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants unfortunate parents of'deceased^ Subhash Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,78,172/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri MK Baeg, learned counsel for the appellant 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.25,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,78,172/- only. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand contended that the Tribunal hasawarded excessive sum of Rs.2,78,172/- as compensation to the claimants, who are parents ofdeceased Subhash Singh. 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 r y of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as towhether the compensation of Rs.2,78,172/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Subhash Singh used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month from agriculture, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact, jt has come in the evidence of claimants' witness AW/1 Geeta Bai that all the agricultural lands were in the name of claimant No.2 Sunder Singh, father of deceased Subhash Singh. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the incomeof the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.25,0007- per annum on its own estimate. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 * of the income towards his personat expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Subhash Singh on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 9) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in thecase of Municipal Corporationof Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the^ deceased, the multipliershould neverexceed 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 to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma