•«»i?te.sis. iywyu». u( •fSS^^:!!Se-s~si"~ r~7 £ — HK3H COURT CMF CHHATTBGARH AT BIU^PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 252 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1. Smt. Sunita Devt w/o late Prem Ram, aged about 32 years, OGCupation Household. 2. Manlt Kumar s/o late Prem Ram, aged aboyt 15 years. 3. Ramnath s/o tate Prem Ramn, aged about12years. 4. Pramod s/o late Prem Ram, aged about 9 years. 5. Dharam Ram s/o late Prem Ram, ^edabout 5 yeare. Appellant No. 2 to 5 mlnore, throy^i their molher & natural guardian Srot. Sunita Devi. All R/o viltage Vilay nagar, Tahsil Pal, district Suiguja C.G. VERSUS Non- Applicants Respondents ^imeshwar Singh ^o Matan Singh, r/o village Nagra,_P.S. Ram^nujganj, Tehsil Pal, district Surguja, C.G. (QWNER) Vinay Singh Khairwar s/e Rampati Khairwar, aged about '35 years, rte village Bhanwarmal, P.S. Ramanujganj, district Surguja, C.G. (OjRlVER) The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch, through Brahcrfi Manager, the New India tnsurance Company Ltd. Branch Daltor^anj. (INSURER) B—Ka :^'t;^'^^ ^ ; SS^ ••^.y'^w'1' ^ •'"'ii 9 •"».,—&?• MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE WUTOR VEHICLES ACT. Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the appellante. Shri G.S. Patel, counsel for respwidents No.1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (04th March, 2011) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for aihancement of the compensation awarded by the First Addittonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, dislrict Surguja (for short, tto Tribunal') vide award dated 19.06.2006, pass^din Claim ©ase No. 12/20)5. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Prem Ram, by flling a claim petition under Seclton 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,35,900/- as compensation to ttie claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actualpayment. _ 3) Shri A.K. Prasad, teamed counsel for the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribunat has ened in not acc»pttng the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased andin 'p- ••••i!; y '":&^. assessing his income at Rs.2,400/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,35,9CX)/- only. 4) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for re^ondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on ttie other hand, supported the award and contended that the corapenssrtiwi of Rs.3,35,900/- awarded by the Trtbunal Is just and proper compensation in the facts and circum^ancesofthepresent case. 5) Shri G.S. Patel, leamed counsel for respondente No.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the oflending vehicte Tractor contended that the Tribunal has erred in hofcling the owner ofthe Tractor Nable topay compen^ition to the claimants. 6) In a motoraccident ctaim csse, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper eompensation in the facts and ciroumstances of the case; It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonans'a. 7) Now we shatl examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,35,OX)/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and prcyer compen^tion in the facts and circumstancesofthe present case, 8) 'True, the claimants pleaded that dec»ased Prem Ram used to eam Rs.6,000/- per month as M%on, no retiable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establidi the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In fact, ctaimant No.1 Smt. Sunita Devi, appearing as AW1 before the Tribunal admitted in her cross" examination that in their vitlage Masons were gelting Rs.80/-; Rs.100/-; and Rs.150/- per day. The Tribunal on the basis of her above evidence assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.K)/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month. 9) On due conslderation, we d6 not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month as the deceased admittedly was working in a small village in the district of Saiguja. 10) The claimants'dependency also hasbeen rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 ofthe tncome ofthe deceased towards his pereonal eiqsenses. 11) The multiplier of 17 setected by the Triburwl is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Prem Ram was shown to be 35 yearsof age in his postmortem report and in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Vema (Smt) and Others Versus (telhi Transport Corporatton aiid another, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed fortheage group between 31-35 years. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope ft»r enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal fil«l by the appellants/ claimarrts for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) J<lo order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -?".^w