HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants (CIaimants) Misc. Appeal No. 191 of 2005 1. Gopal Sahu s/o tate Budhram Sahu, aged about 48 years, 2. Ravi Kumar, s/o Gopal Sahu,aged about 12 years, through Natural Guardian and father appellant No.1, GopatSahu 3. Shiv KumarS/o Gopal Sahu, aged about 30 years, 4. Jeevan Lal, s/o Gopal Sahu, aged about 21 years, All r/o village Hasda (Khisora),Tahsil Magarload, Dhamtari C.G. VERSUS 1.8alram Mandavi, S/o Samru Mandavi, R/o Tikrapara (Yadav Para), Raipur C.G. 2. M/s Hora Transport (P) Ltd, Fafadih Raipur, Dist.: Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Unitedlndia Insurance Co-. Ltd., Krishna Complex, KaGheri Chowk Raipur, dist: Raipur (C.G.) MISC.APPEALUNDERSECTION1730FTHEMQTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^ : • • . .'.••.'••'•:'•".. • '. .••'•.; :'-: ' ''''•' 'Present: Shri Santosh Bharat, eounsel for the appellants. None for respohdent No, 1. Ms. SoniaKuldeep,eounsel forrespondent No.2. Shri Shree Kurnar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with G.V.K. Rao, counsel for respondent No.3. Respondents (Non-applicants) e (\y QRDER ith (10tnJanuary,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 14 of 2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,85,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husbandand sonsof deceased Shanti Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 08.10.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,56,400/- ascompensation 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 Shanti Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motoraccident on 08.10.2002 when the Truck bearing registration No.M.P.23DA/4304 (New No.C.G.04- ZC/0864) in which she wa^ travelling met with an accident and pverturned; theaccident occurred duetorash and negligent driving of the driver of the above-mentioned Truck; — the above- mentioned Truck though on the date ofthe accident was insured withthe United Indialnsurance Gompany Limited,asthesame was being plied in breach of the policy conditions, inasmycB as the deceased was travelling as passenger in the goocts vehlcle, the 'i € ^ Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and drlver of the Truck. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.1,820/- per month assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 26 days in a month. By deducting a sum of Rs.600/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,220/- per month and Rs.14,640/- per annum. By \ multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.14,640/- with the multiplier of 10, the eompensation was worked out to Rs.1,46,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,56,400/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shanti Bai inthe motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of eompensation of Rs.1 ,56,400/- @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counset for the appellants vehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; in not accepting the ctaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.1,820/- per month only; inselecting the lower multiptier of 10; and in awarding lowcompensation of Rs.1,56,400/- only. ik"-^'*""^ .r' ?. ''{^RY^^S^ 'wsss^ ?^'3- 6) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel with Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants as the deceased at the time of the accident was travelling asa passenger in a goods vehicte. 7) Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, leamed counsel for respondent No.2, ^4/s Hora Transport (P) Ltd., the owner of the pffending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 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.1,56,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As the deceased admittedly wastravelling in the Truck as a passenger, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner and driver of the Truck have been rightly held by the Tribunal liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 11) Of the four claimants before the Tribunat, ctaimant Gopal Sahu is the husband of the deceased and claimants Shiv Kumar ^^?' ^^•^ &^^ !; 1 •^S'S^-""-'^ f» •s!,».~y '•^^'^^ and Jeevan Lal are her major sons. Fourth claimant Ravi Kumar is minor son of the deceased, who is primarily dependent on his father claimant Gopal Sahu. Deceased Shanti Bai,according to the claimants, used to earn Rs. 125-150/- per day by selling vegetables. The claimants could not adduce any elinching and reliable evidence to establish the income of the deceased to the extentof Rs.125-150/- per day. In thisstate ofevidence, we do not find any infirmity inthe assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.1,820?- per month. 12) The Tribunal has rightly assessed the claimants' dependency at Rs.1,220/- per month by deducting the usua! 1/3rd of the incQme of the deceased towards her personalexpenses. 13) Considering that the claimantsare husband and three sons of the deceased, ofwhom two are majorsons, we do not find any fault in the selection of multiplier of 10 by the Tribunal in the peculiar facts ofthe present case. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find anyscope 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. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe eompensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. - 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief lustice