OF AT iliVESI C.J. G ^- v Cialrnants 1 Anii Pandey, Aged about 32 years, S/o Laxrnan Pandey 2 SmritE Pandey, about 7 years; D/o Anit Pandey (MInor)' 3 Aniket @ Pandey, 5 (Mlnor) S/o Anll 4 Pradam Pandey; 3 (Mlnor), S/o Anll Pandey Appeiiants No.2, 3 & 4 are minor through natural Guardian fatherAnil Pandey, Viz Appeiiant No.1 Ai! of Phaphadlh Raipur PS Gang Tah & Dtstt (CG) Non-aDpilcanti 2 if^O^I Praveen Kumar jaln S/o Kahtur .Jaln R/o (Near Jain Post - Korlya (CG) Th-s United india insurance Company Llmltsd Through - Dlvlslona! Manager, Divislonal Officer, Chowk, |aii Tah @ Di-stt (CG) Distt - Durg (Chhattlsgarh) rV, Pr : Shrl Vivek Rathore, forthe None for No.1. @ Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsei for respondent No.2. ^ L (18£n The foilovtfing of the Court by C.J, This is cla'imant's for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the T'nird Additlonal Motor Accident Clairns Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide 23.08.2004, in Ciaim No.50/2003. 2) As agalnst.the compensation of Rs.70,50,000/-, ciaimed by the appeiiants/daimants, unforlunate husband and chiidren of Smt Swati @ Pandey by fliing a cialm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Ac.t. for her in the motor accident on 12.10.2002, the Tribunai a total sum of Rs.9,31,172/- as with @ 9% per annum from the ofthe flilng ofthe daim petition tjil the of payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutlny of the entirs evidence ied it that Smt Swati ?@ Pandey on account of the injuries by her En the motor accident on 12.10.2002; the occurred due to and driving of the of the offendlna vehicie No.CG-16/1364; as the above offending'vehlcle QuaEis on the of the accident was with the United Insurance Company Limited, and the insurance Company could not ^Sh !t ~%^^^/' •^£^y L T .1 ^..., \^. any of the poiicy conditions; the tnsurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunsi the- income of the at R.s.85,000/- per annum. By deductlng 1/3ra of Rs.85,000/- towards the of the the ciaimants' dependency at Rs.56.667/- per annum. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.56,667/- with.the mujtlpiier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.9,06,672/-. By fui'ther surn of Rs.24,500/- under other heads, the Tribunai a.warded a totai sum ot' Rs.9,31,172/- as compenss.tion to the cialmants for the of Smt @ Saraswati Pandey in the motor accldent. The TribunaS further payment of on tne above amount of compensation of Rs.9,31,172/- @ 9% per annum from the of the fiiing of the ciaim petition tlii the of actual payment. 5) Shri Vivek Rathore, • iearned counsei for the vehemently argued that the Triounai has in the income of the at Rs.85,000/- per annum only; in 1/3ra of the IncQme of the her expenses; and in iow compensation of Rs.9,31,172/- onlY. 6) Shrl Gupta, iearned counsel for respondent No.2 Unlted insurance Company Limited on the other hand submitted'that the Tribuna! has quite in awarding arnount-of Rs.9,31 ,.172/- as to the claimants. —^ 1 ^K 'i^^-^' ^^r^-^^ ^^^^-^-^y L; / \ c... 7) in a rnotor accident ctaim what is important is that the to be by the Courts / Tribunais shouid be just and compensationjn the and ctrcumstances of the !t shou!d neither be a amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 8) Now, we shal! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.9,31,172/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the and circumstances of the 9) So far as the of the income of the by the Tribunai at R.s.85,000/- per annum is concerned, the clalmants cannot have any legitimate grievance in that behalf as the income Tax Retum of the produced before the Tribunai her income to the of Rs.85,OOQ/- oniy. 10) The of 1/3 of the income of the tovvard.s her cannot be found fauit with in vlew of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the of Vs 2 225. 1.1) The muitlpjler of 16 by the Tribunai js on the hiahe-r that the 36 of aae on the of the accldent. 12) The Tribunai has quite Jlberai in awarding Rs.24,500/- under other heads. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any for enhancement of the compensation by the Tribuna! elther 6n account ofthe ofthe income ofthe orthe ,' ciaimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the muitlpEier seiected. 14) The fiied by the aDpeiiants/claimants ror enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, 1s EJabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. 15) No order as to Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/~ • ~7 iRX chandrakar ! Judge „ J padma ! . ^