QOQ HIGHICOURT OF CHHATT53GARH AT EILASPUR DiViSION E‘ENCH CORAM: HOWELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C.J. ‘HGN’BLE SHRE $UN£L KUMAR SINHI‘A, J. Misc. Anneal No.120 of 2003 1. Puna Rami Sfo Vishram Verma, aged abou: 56 yrs 2. Rambai, Wfo Puna Ram, Aged about 48 years PS Mandir Hasod, Dist Rax‘pur (CG) Anpellan€s CRaimants Versus Resbondents 1. Ahamed Khan, S/o Turan Khan Through- : Non-apg‘icants DEVESEGn Manager, Madhya Pradesh $tate Road Transport Corporation, Ama \ Naka, Drst‘Rarpur 2 Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Through Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ama Naka, Dist Raipur 3 CG infrastructure V Deveiopment Corporation Amanaka, Raipur 4 The State of CG" Through Coiiector Raipur CG Misceiianeous Appeai uls1,?3 of the Motor Vehicies Act Present : Shri SC Verma, learned counsel-for the appellants. Shri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (2.7m August. 291.9) appeal for enhancement of the N Raipur (for‘short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 07.11.2062, passed in Claim Case No.09/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.32,80,00D/- claimed by the anpeiiants I claimants, unfartunate parents of ’deceased Mukesh Verma, aged about 2S years by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the ’ motor accident on 10122001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,00C)/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appetlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,70,GOGI'- only. 4) Shri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,7OIJOOI- awarded by the Tribunal is iustancl proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present Case . 5) Ina 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. 6) Now, we‘shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,70,000I- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) The claimants are parents of deceased Mukesh Verma. Deceased Mukesh Verma. on the date of the accident was aaed about 25 vears. The claimants pleaded that their son Mukesh Verma used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by plying buses. The Tribunal considering that the buses were registered in the name of claimant Rambai, mother of deceased Mukesh Verma, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/— per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163~A of the Meter Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,Q00/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants! dependency was assessed‘at Rs.10,000I- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000!- with the multipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rsi ,76,000l-. 8) ‘Ev'en assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.30,0GO/- oer annum which We have assessed on the notional basis for the year 2001 in other cases, the claimants‘ dependency would not be more than Rs;15.000f—. as 50% of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammad Jameei and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would not be more than 1f) in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the .x case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman iyer and another: reported in (2M3) 8 SCC-T31, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the l subbu 24 E# ;1 '6@; deceased, the multipiier shouid never exceed 1f); by muitiplying ’the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to R51 ,50,000!-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,'BOO/-‘towards'funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/— for ioss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,0DO/- as compensation which is less than the amount of Rs.1 ,70,00D/— awarded by the Tribunal. 9) . For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for M ‘ enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 10) The appeal, filed ‘ by the appeilants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 1i) No order asto costs. A Sdl— x Sd/- Sum ‘\ Kuma" Si?“ha 'ctIIEF JUSTICE " Judge