?s1-' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON?BLE SHRt RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J MANo.645of2006 Appellants Cteimants Resoondents Non-applicants 1 Smt Godawari Bai, Wd/o Arjun Lal Sahu, Aged about 38 years 2 Pawan Kumar, S/o Arjun Lal Sahu, aged about 17 years 3 Mahendra Kumar, S/o Arjun Lal Sahu, agedabout15years 4 Ku. Veena, D/o Arjun Lal Sahu, aged about 13 years 5 Ku. Surekha, D/o Arjun Lal Sahu, aged about11 years Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 are represented by legaj guardian mother appellant No.1 All residents of Village Boria Kala, PO Mana Camp, Distt Raipur (CG) Versus 1 Rohit Kumar Sahu, S/o Punlt Ram Sahu R/o Sirri Kala (Figeshwer) PS Rajim, Distt Raipur (CG) 2 Devendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Jamuna Prasad Pandey, R/o Jail Road Mahasamund, PS Mahasamund, Mahasamund (CG) 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd., By Divisional Manager, National insurance Co. Ltd., GE Road, Raipur Distt Raipur (CG) 4 Milan Ram S/o Firanta Sahu, R/o Village Boria Kala, Po Sejbahar, PS Mana Camp, Distt Raipur (CG) "7^ 5 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.. By DMsionaS Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) Misc Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehideAct.1988 Present : Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the appellante. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER (7th January, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the partles are heard on MCP No.856/2006, a petition for condonation of the detay Sn fiting the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.856/2006, therefore is allowed and the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admjsston. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide order dated 16.11.2005 passed In claim case No.91/2004. |! T 1.£^^^ °iA 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10.05.000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow and minor chlldren of deceased Arjun Lal Sahu by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicte Act for hSs death in the motor acddent on 13.02.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,52,060/- as compensatjon along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, 7) Shri Aditya Khare, learned counseS for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low conipensation of Rs.8,52,060/- only. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is Important Ss that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunal shoutd be just and proper compensatjon in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) The claimants themselves pleaded that deceased Arjun Lal Sahu used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month. As the Tribunal has assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, the claimants cannot have any legitimate grtevance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rlghtly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Arjun Lal Sahu was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident. P-^ ^T^... f^%. '\ ''8 S .y ff ^s-^ ^^ padma 12) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge