,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUIVSARSINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 915 of 2005 c c '.sj Appellants Claimants 1. Kaushilya Bai, aged 29 years wd/o. iate Shri Bisahu Nirmalkar. 2. Ku. Nitu, aged about 14 years, d/o iate Bisahu Nirmalkar. 3. Ku. Laxmi, aged about 10 years, s/o late Bisahu Nirmalkar. c G 4. Gulshan Kumar, aged about 3 years D/o late Bisahu Nirmalkar. No. 2, 3 & 4 are minors through natural guardian applicant no.1 Smt. Kaushilya Bai. All R/o village Charoda, P.S. Dharsiva, Tahsil and District Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents -•'?->?- Horilal Sahu, aged not known S/o Shri Hemaram Sahu, R/o viltage Charoda, P.S. Dharsiva, Tahsil and District Raipur C.G. The New India Insurance Co, Ltd. through Branch Manager Branch Office Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur Tah. & District C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri R, Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. Shri Suresh Tandon, counsei for respondent No. 1. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. c c c c ORDER ith (14tnFebruary,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 13th Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 13.05.2005, passed in Claim CaseNo. 66 of 2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- claimed by the appeilants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Bisahu Nirmalkar,by filing aciaim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.01.2004, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.3,93,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensationofRs.3,93,500/-only. 4) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the New india Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,93,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case; c c c c 5) Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, also supported the award. 6) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by theCourts/Tribunals shoutd 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.3,93,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased bythe Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month as they themselves pleaded inthe claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as Mini-door driver. 9) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usua! 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 10) As the de^eased, admittedly, was between the age group of 30-35 years, the multiplier of 1 G selected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation andanother, reported ih (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35years. c c ^•'••-.^ subbu 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- \ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 'L.-