.'::^ HIGHGOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants Claimants sffi3aj Iteij;^ Misc. Appeal No.943 of 2005 1 Smt Lela Bai, Widow of Nandu Ram Yadav, aged about 33 years 2 Narsingh, S/o Nandu Ram Yadav, aged about17years 3 Veer Smgh, S/o Naodu Ram Yadav, aged about 15 years 4 Ku Mukeswari Yadav,d/o Nandu Rsrn Yadav, aged about 13years 5 Mahasingh, S/o Nandu Ram Yadav, aged about 11 years 6 Amar Slngh Yadav, Wo Nandu Ram Yadav.agedabout 9yeare 7 Bhun^twiar Paread, S/o Late Daya Ram, aged about 55 yeare 8 Smt Rukhmani, W/o Bhuneshwar, aged about 53 years 9 Jitendra Kumar S/o Bunesl'awar Prasad, aged alNiirt 17 yeare 10 Kumari Gayatrl, 0/o Buneshwar Prasad, aged about ISyeare Appellant No.2 - 6 re represented by through their nalural guardian and mother Smt Lila Bai and Appellant No.9-10 are represented by through their father Bhuneswar Prasad Alt R/o Village Mundra, Tehsil and Thana - Abhanpur, Di^rict Raipur (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Deepak Kumar Chhanta, S/o Karta @ tenhaiya Chhaitfa, R/o Changora 2 ^fe.l^fcy:^^^^ fiBK^SI® 3 Bhata, Near Shitala Mandir, PS Purani Basti, Ralpur (CG) (Driver of Traetor CGN0.04-A/8246) Madan Sonkar, S/o Not Known Rfo Changorabhata, Thana Purani Basti, Raipur (GG) (Owner of Tractor GG N0.04-A/8246) The National Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Manager, Regional OfRce, National Insurance Company Ud., GE Road, Raipur, CG (Insurer of Tractor CGNo.04-A^246) Ramtaran Sonkar, S/o Not known, R/® Changorabhata, Near Shitla R^andir, Thana - Puranibasti, Tehsil & District Raipur (CG) (Owner of Trolley No.CG-ZG-4834) 5 Oriental Insurance Company Through its R^ional ManaQer, Kutchery Chowk, Jall Road, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur CG (Insurer of Troltey No.CG-ZG-4834) Miscellaneous Appeal umter Sectkwi 173 <rf MotorVehiclesAct Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu, coureel fortheappeNaite. Shri Rq Aw^thi. counset for respondwt No.3. Shri Shailendra Shanna, Gounsel for respondent No.5. (OShA(W»,2011) The ft)ltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 1 4tt Addittonat M<tfor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vkle award dated 16.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 17^2004. l«!»,t31 2) As against the compensaMon of Rs.30,03,axy-, clalmed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minw chlldren, parents, brother and sister of deceased Nandu Ram Yadav by filing a ctalm petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for Ws death in the motor accident on 12.03.20(0, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,96,000/- as compen^tion along with intere^ @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltlon till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Satyandra Sahu, leamed counset for the appellarts vehemently aigued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.3,%,(MO/- only. 4) Shri Raj Awasthi, teamed counsel ter respondent No.3 the National Insurance Canpany Llmited, the tnsurer of the offending vehlcte tractor on the (rther hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri Shailendra Sharma, teamed counsd for r^ptNKlerrt No.S, the oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the trolley also supported the award. 6) In a motor accident elaim case what is hnportant is that the eompensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate shoutel be just and proper compensation in the facts and ciroimwtances of the ease. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 7) Now, we shall examine as to whether the Gompenstrtlon of Rs.3,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Deceased Nandu Ram Yadav was aged about 37 yeas on the date of the accident. Though the daimants pteaded that he was having a dairy with 20cattle-heads, no documentary evidenee was produced before the Tribunal to establish the above occufMtlon of the deceased and his income to the extent claimed by the daimants. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed his Incorrffi on itsown estimate at Rs.3,OCK3/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal selected the multiplier of 16, which cannoit be termed to be on the tower side. 9) The compen^ton of Rs.3,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examlned in the context of the above menttoned broad features of the case, we are satisfled, is just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstences of the present case and do^not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) As we do not Tind any scope fw enhancement of ttie compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal flled by the appellants/ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation !s liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. • 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma ._.._^——