HEGH CQURT {3F CHHATTESGARH A? BiLASWjR DiXiiSIQN BENCH C£§Fifliw EGN5ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJu ‘ %“§$N’ELE $§=iRl SUNIL KUMAR SHNHEA, J. Misa. Appea! No. 528 a€ 20M 1 $mt. Hemiata Mandavi, W10 Late A$3§e§§am$ Shri Bhoj Kumar Mandavi, Aged about 27 years Ku‘ Dameshwari @ Rani, D/o !ate Shré Bhaj Kumar Maawdavi, Aged abaut 4 years 3 Pushpendra Kumar 5/0 late Shri Bhoj Kumar Mandavi, aged abaut 2 years Appellants No.2 & 3 are minors and ale regresemed through their mother appellant N0.1 All resident 0f Village — Khedamara (Nawatanya) Post - Dhaur, Thana — Jamul, Tahell & Dletrlot —— Durg (CG) ¥ERSU$ Qeergenéeme l. Sahdev Mahar S/o Pachkode r/o Village Khedamara (Nawatarlya), Thane .Jarnll, district Durg C.G. (Driver of Tractor C.G, 08—6 5297) 2. Krishna Kumar Tiwari 8/0 $hri Shankar Prasad Tiwari, R/e Village Khedamara (Nawatariya), Thana Jamui; district Burg CG. resent Address New Khursipar, near 8angam Chowk, Khursipar, Bhilai, district Durg C.G. 3. Divisional Manager, the New lndia insurance Company Limited, Raipur, threugh divisional Manager, the New lndia insurance C0. Ltd, near Project Autdmebile, Power House, Ehilai: k) (lnsurance Company of Tractor CG. 08-0 529?) M533, AP?EAL UNEER SECTEON ’§?3 OF THE MSTGR VEHSCLE$ i361 1938 @resent: Shri NK Chatterjee, counse‘ for the appenantS. Shri S.L. Chandra, counsel for respondent NM. $‘nri Dashrath Gupta, coun$ei for respondent No.3. ORDER (215‘ February, 201 1} “Kr; The feliowing order of the Court was paesed by Rageev Gupiee Col, enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Durg (for short, ‘the Tribunai') Vide award dated 20.01 2005, paseed in Ctaim Casse No. 379 of 2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.t7,’r2,000[— claimed by the appeitante/ otaimanie; unfortunate Widow and minor children of deceased Bhoj Kumar Mandavi, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehiotes Act, for hie death in the motor accident on 12.03.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total Sum of Rat ,87,000!— as compensation to the claimants along with interest Q), 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri NK. Chatterjee, learned counset for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,87.000/— only. This is Ciaimants’ appeat for __,_/—’—"‘—’—f. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta teamed counsei for respondent N9 3 :ha New mdsa msuranve Comoanv Limited on the other hand sumorwd the award and contmded thm the camoemaimn m RsLS‘f‘GOOI— awardga by the Tribunai is just and preper ocmpensatien én the facts and circumstances 0f the preseni: cage. 5) Shn‘ 8L. Chandra; ieamed ceunse! for respondent No.1, the driver of the effending vehicle, aiso suppoirted the award. 6} In a motor accident claim case what is imporiant is that, the oomoeneai on to be awamed by the Couos/Tr'bunais ehou d be just eno proper oompeneation in'the facte and circumstances of the cage. it ehouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza 73‘ ’ Now we she” examine as to Whether the compensation of Rs.1;87;DOO/— awarded by the Tribune! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumetanoesof the present case 8) True; the Claimants pieaded that deceased Bhog‘ Kumar Mandavi used to earn Ret QOI- per day as taboor, the evidence ted in that behah‘ was not of ctinchtng nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimante’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in aeseeeing his income on its own estimate at ReJ‘S‘DOOL per annum. 9)‘ The ciaimants’ dependency aieo has been rightiy assessed by the Tribune! by deducting the usuai il3rdof the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses. ‘ 4 @9 m} The cfaimanfg cannot have any grievance about the setection 0f multigiier of 18 as it is the highest multiplier presaribed in the Secanci Scheduie under Section 163-A of ihe Motor Vehicies Act. ii) Far iha foregoing reasons; we do not find any smpe for enhancement af the compeneaiien awarded by the Tribunai. 12) The appeai rfiied by the appeiianis/ ciai‘mants fer enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to he dismiesed and is hereby diemieseci. subbu R ’ x ’ _ ls‘élcv ‘ sw— Chief .. ,5 - A SW?“ Kumar $énha “ V Jusu'ce V ‘iee‘lqggre ‘ e : .