HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1168 of 2009 Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-claimants 1 Smt. Rukhmani Bai Dewangan, w/o late Ravindra Kumar Dewangan, aged about 25 years, 2 Aditya Kumar @ Meghnath Dewangan, s/o late Ravindra Kumar Dewangan, aged about 2 months, [appellant No. 2 being minor on behalf of through his legal guardian mother appellant No.1 Smt. Rukhmani Bai Dewangan] 3 Mohanlal Dewangan, s/o late Shri Ramlal Dewangan, aged about 60 years, 4 Smt. Budhiyarin Bai Dewangan, w/o Shri Mohanlal Dewangan, aged about 56 years. All R/o Village Birgaon, near Ngarpalika Parishad, Police Station Urla, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Chainsingh Dhruv, s/o Karansingh Dhruv, aged about 26 years, r/o. D.H.P.R. Transport, Birgaon Rawanbhata, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. Permanent Address Village Jaglikheda, Police Station Gadi, district Balaghat, M.P. (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration N0. C.G. 04/E/5767) 2 Satish Kumar Prajapati, s/o y: II cS) Paduwashnath Prajapati, r/o village Acholi (Urla), Tahsil & district Raipur C.G. Present r/o D.H.P.R. Transport, Birgaon Rawanbhata, Raipur district RaipurC.G. (Owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration N0. C.G. 04/E/5767) 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.2, Vyavasaik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, district RaipurC.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration N0. C.G. 04/E/5767) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (22nd July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 18/2008. t'l '%^s^^ ^: —^^^ 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Ravindra Kumar Dewangan by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,51,192/- as compensation 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 Ravindra Kumar Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04 A/8805; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the insurance company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appe.al against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,418/- per month and Rs.53,016/- per annum. By multiplying the annual income of Rs.53,016/- with the multiplier of 18, the total amount was worked out to Rs.9,54,228/-. By deducting 1/3rd of this amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the compensation payable to the claimants was assessed at Rs.6,36,192/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, total amount of Rs.6,51,192/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ravindra Kumar Dewangan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.6,51,192/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.4,418/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,51,1927- only. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.6,51,192/- as compensation to the claimants. 8) Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Chainsingh Dhruv, the driver of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) 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 I t^% .-. '; \. ^^/ of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,51,192/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ravindra Kumar Dewangan used to earn Rs.6,0007- per month by working as Shiksha Karmi and from tuition, the salary certificate produced before the Tribunal (Ex.P/7) established the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,218/- per month. Though the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased from tuition was not at all satisfactory, even then, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased from tuition at Rs.200/- per month and the total income of the deceased was taken at Rs.4,418/- per month. 12) On due consideration of the entire material available on record in regard to the income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,418/- per month. 13) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 14) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. € ;< w:^.^\ j l y:-^'" .4^ 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 16) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu