@ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 909 of 2008 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1 Smt. Bhagwati w/o late Shri Haldhar, aged about 29 years, by caste Nishad. 2 Shashikala d/o late Shri Haldhar Nishad, aged about 7 years, 3. Ritesh s/o Shri Haldhar Nishad, aged about 5 years, 4. Riteshwari d/o Shri HaldharNishad, aged about 3 years, Appellant No. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian motherSmt. Bhagwati, all are r/o village & post Dukali (Koliyari) Tahsil Nagari, distt. Dhamtari, presently residence of village Raipura, tahsil & distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Trilokinath s/o Shri Heeraman, by caste Baya, aged about 42 years, r/o Jail Road Dhamtari, tahsil and distt. Dhamtari C.G. 2 Satam Singh s/o Ugrah Singh aged about 45 years, r/o Rampur Ward Dhamtari, tahsil and distt. Dhamtari C.G. 3 The Bran'ch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in front of Court Jail Road Raipur distt. Raipur C.G. ^ Appeal under Section 173 of the lUIotor Vehicle Act X '^,^^, y^\ ~"-y .„' i^^/' e? X Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (30th June, 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 10 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.03.2008, passed in Claim Case No.116/2007. 2) As against the compensafion of Rs.29,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Haldhar Nishad by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 21.02.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,89,000/- as compensation 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 scrufiny of the enfire evidence ted before it held the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.05/ZA/2079 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying theannual dependency of Lt •\ Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,89,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Haldhar Nishad in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- only. 5) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6) 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. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. X \: 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Haldhar Nishad used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from his kirana business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment' of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 10) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act. 11) 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. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable tp be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as tocosts. — - _ Sd/- Chief Justice R.N. Chandr ige ? ^ ^