HIGH COURT W CHHATTI^SARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SfrWI RAJEEV ©UPTA,C.J. HON'BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J. Appellants Claimants Resoondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal No.1002 <rf 2008 1 Bharat Lal S/o Visesar Verma, aged about 44 years 2 Janki Bai, W/o Bharatlal Verma, age about 43 years 3 Rupeh Kumar, S/o Bharatlal Verma, aged 22 years 4 Ku Usha D/o Bhartlal Vera, aged about 19years All are R/o Ramkund Rajpiff, Dtett Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Mukesh Singh, S/o Kushal Singh Through M/s Inter Dominion Transport Company, Mahakaushal Complex, Bhanpuri (Near Police Station) PS Khamtrai, PO Beergaon Tah & Distt Raipur (CG) 2 M/s Inter Dominion Transport Company, Mahakaushat complex, .< Bhanpuri (Near PoHce Station) PS KhamtaraS, PO Beergaon Tah & Distt Raipur (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager. (D0"2) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sain Nagar Raipur, Tah & dtett Raipur Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act "^^.^^^^;^^,;^;-;-^^3^S£S^2^^2S^;^^TO!^ss^ A Present : Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appellante. Shri KN Nande, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (05th 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 3"* Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.04.2005, passed in Cla'im Case No.55/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,92,000/-, claimed by the appellants/datmants, unfortunate parents, brotha" and sister of deceased Nirmal Verma, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his death In the motor aocictent on 17.09.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,29,500/- as compensation along wSth interest @ 6% per annum from the date of frting of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal held the insurer of the offending vehtde tryck bearSng registratlon No.CG-04 ZC/1531 liabte to pay eompen^tion to the daimants. The Tribunal assessed the Sncome of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By assessing the claimants' dependency ateo at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by multiplying the same wtth the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal assessed the l^ compensation at Rs.2,25,000/-. By awardlng further sum of Rs.4,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum oS Rs.2,29,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the d^ith of deceased NirmaJVerma in the motor accldent. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,29,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fBing of the daim petttion till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri SC Verma, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred hi awarding low compensation of Rs.2,29,500/- only. 5) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehtele truck, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,29,SOO/- awarded by the Tribunal is, just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 6) Shri KN Nande, leamed counsel fbr respondent No.2 ttw owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 7) In a motor accident claim case what te important te that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstanees of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, rwr a bonanza. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,^,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the p-esent case. v""^^.,^^^^^ ^ 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nirmal Verma used to eam Rs.5,000/- per month as driver, nocogent and reWable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the incomeof the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. In this sferte <rf evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the sffisessment of ie income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionari income prescribed in the Secorel Schedule. 10) The Tribunal apparently has fallen into error in not deducting any sum towards the personal expenses of the deceased white assessing the claimants' dependency. In fact, the deduction In that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dteta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus D^hi Transpcwt Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme C<Mirt Cases 121. ....^.^. 11) The multipliQ- of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents, brother and sister of the deceased and in vlew of the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another,reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. T^ 12) For the foregoing reasons we do n<^ find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the tncome of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is her6by dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu