A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR D1VISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON?BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRJ RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J IVIssc Appeal (Cl No.423 of 2010 ADpejlants Clajmants 1 Rohnibai Jangde aged about 26 years, w/o Chaman Lal Jangde Satnami 2 Gourav Jangde, aged about 7 years 3 Kumari Himani aged about 4 years 4 Himanshu Jangde, aged about 5 years The appetlant No.2 to 3 s/o Chaman Lal Jangde minors through its legal guardian mother Rohnibai, w/o iate Chaman Lal Jangde 5 6 Gangadin Jangde, aged about years, s/o iate Lobhnath Jangde 60 Smt Mangnin Bai Jangde, aged about 50 years, w/o Gangadin Jangde All are resident of village Bhimkanhar, Post : Bhimkanhar, Police Station Sanjari Chowki, Tah Dondilohara, Distt Durg (CG) Respondents VERSUS Ahamed Raja Agul Moh. Aged about 25 years, r/o village Gundardehi, Tah Gundardehi, Distt DUrg (CG) Nationai insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Branch Office, Dil Complex Near Gurudwara, Station road Durg (CG) Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Akash Ganga Parishar, Supela, Bhiiai, Tahsil & District Durg (CG) .,^&.^-—^,,^ "^l. \. ^,// "^. 1^^" ^' "-^.^<^K" MAC.No. 423 of 2010 ^: Misce31aneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehlcSes Act Present : Shri CR Sahu and Shri CK Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (17th August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.12.2009, passed in Claim Case No.57/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Chaman Lal Jangde by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.04.2009; the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Chaman Lal Jangde died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.04.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent ,^,..^,^\ '%; •y MAC.No. 423 of 2010 n\ driving of the driver of the offendmg vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.CG-007/3065; as the above offending vehicie Tata Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company coutd not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was llable to pay compensatjon 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.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 the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muttiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/-, as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of deceased Chaman Lal Jangde in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 6) Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants 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.3,000/- per month and MAC.No. 423 of 2010 Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3rd ofthe income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counset for respondent No.2, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has tiberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) !n 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.4,25,000/- 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 Chaman Lal Jangde used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Contractor, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribuna! for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 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 personat expenses. MAC.No. 423 of 2010 9" 12) The muttiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as deceased Chaman Lal Jangde on the date of the accident, according to his widow, was 32 years and the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus DeShi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 -35 years. 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/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma