HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A' ASPUR D!VISION CORAM: HON?BLE QUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SUN!L KUMAR S1NHA, J. Misceilaneous Appeai fC) No. 240 of 2008 Applicant Vjjay Kumar Ekka aged 29 (Ciaimant) years S/o Late M.D. Ekka, R/o Qr. No. 145, Indravati Nager Kohka, Bhiial District Durg RESPONDENTS (Non_C!a|mants] VERSUS 1, 2. c^- Chandra PraRash Shyam Kumar S/o Bhimrao Shyam Kumar R/o Gram Boidongri Tehsli Katangl, District BaSaghat (M.P.) (Driver of Offending Vehicle Mahindra Max-Reg. No. MP50/D/0212) Namdev IVIahajan S/o Kanu namdev R/o Gram Boidongri Tehsil t^tangi, Dlstrict Balaghat (M.P.) (Owner of Offending Vehicle Mahindra Max. Reg. No. MP50/D/0212 The Oriental (nsurance Company Ltd. Through : Branch Manager, Aakash Ganga Complex, Supela Bhilai Branch, Bhljai District Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Company of Offending Vehicle Bajaj Ferio Reg. No. CG07/K/8216) ^EIVIORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF MOTORVEHICLE ACT.1988 3. Present: Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appeliant. 0^_D_E_R (25th February, 1£ (,- The followino order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on t.A. No. 01/2008 (appiication for condonation of delay in filing the appeai). 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing the sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeai. 3. Therefore, I.A. No. 1 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant - Vijay Kumar Ekka is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Twelth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated T4-Q9-2006, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 48/2006. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.27,99,000/- claimed by the appellant / daimant for the death of his father M.D. Ekka in the motor accident on 28-06-2005 when his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG07/2371 was dashed by the offending vehicle Mahindra Max bearing Reglstration No. MP50D/0212 resulting in multiple serious injuries to M.D. Ekka, who when taken to the hospital was declared dead, the Tribuna! awarded the ^ompensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant. 7. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month onty ; In selecting the lower multipiier of 6; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- only. 8. The claimant pleaded that his father M.D. Ekka used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. For the reasons best known to the ciaimant, no salary slip of deceased M.D. Ekka was filed before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence the Tribunai, in our opinion, was Justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month on the basis of the final payment detaits sljp of the deceased wherein his salary was shown as Rs.10,000/-permonth. 9. Deceased - M.D. Ekka was aged about 52 years on the date of the accident. Soleclaimant - Vijay Kumar Ekka, son of deceased M.D. Ekka was aged about 29 years. !n his statement before the Tribunal he admitted that prior to the death of his father he was working as contractor in the Bhilai Steei Plant. The Tribunal considering all the above factors has assessed the claimant's dependency at Rs.60,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.60,000/- with the multipiier of 6 the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribuna! has been quite liberai in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads. The Tribunat has awarded Interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. '-^^ ^ 10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensationto be awarded by the Courts/Tribunais 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. 11. On due consideration of the submission of iearned counsel for the appellant and the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the impugned award, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant/claimant for the death of his father, is just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu