/! •^•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J 'i7 Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 715 of 2010 hs. Appellants Claimants 1 Smt Shajadi Begam, aged about 22 years, w/o late Rafiuddin @ Rafik 2 Sheikh Imran, aged about 4 years, s/o late Rafiuddin @ Rafik 3 Sheikh Irfaan, aged about 4 months, s/o late Rafiuddin @ Rafik Appellants No.2 and 3 througti his guardian mother appellant No.1. All the appellants are by Caste Musalman, r/o village Sambalpur, Thana & Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) Respondents Driver Owner Insurer VERSUS Amit Kumar Mishra, aged about 30 years, by Caste Brahmin, s/o BS Mishra, r/o Village Sambalpur Thana & Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) Rakesh Kumar Jain, s/o Nemichand by Caste Jain, r/o Sambalpur Thana & Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) National Insurance Company Ltd., above Central Bank, Near RMS Office, Jagdalpur Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act •^::?^, <,./",.^a^ ^ ^ - ^^^^^!^ ^,•^ ^ v.^^/ MAC.No. 715 of 2010 sG c^' Present : Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (12r"0ctober,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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 16/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Rafiuddin @ Rafik Khan by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 15.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,09,195/- 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 scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Rafiuddin @ Rafik Khan died on accountof the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.11.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Pick-up Van M.A.C. No. 715 of 2010 •> lll^. bearing re^istration No.CG 04 E 5121; as the above offending vehicle Tata Pick-up Van on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.21,195/- including Rs.6,195/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,09,195/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rafiuddin @ Rafik Khan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,09,195/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of M.A.C. No. 715 of 2010 the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 18; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,09,195/-only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Pick-up Van on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,09.195/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,09,195/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rafiuddin @ Rafik Khan used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from his food grain business, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above business/occupation of the deceased. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no license or registration of the deceased as food grain dealer was produced before the Tribunal. The three receipts issued by Krishi Vipnan MAC.No. 715 of 2010 (Mandi) Board, Raipur, Ex.P/13, 14 and 15 are in the name of some Saifuddin and the name of deceased in the present case is Rafiuddin @ Rafik Khan. In this highly discrepant evidence about the income of the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12) 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 Motor Vehicles Act. 13) 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- ^.N. Chandrakar Judge