iM- r>i W! •U. l-.W f^. vvf,s^''&'s3'-sfr':s' .i"^i;J]Uf<S^?tg^J ^'i: uritjiiiai ^iaifnaf Smt Rekha Teiv/ani, Aae - 40 vrs, g f*"i E^ 3 l A^^^~*5 ^^i A f /**L' vv/o Laie inaer lejwani, v/iaovv or ;pf1 •^S Tkirf ^d?^r ^rf^ Iwr 1r^ V-S 2 Kumari Veenita yrs, D/o Late Indi of deceased ''A/^H.! rlsun^r^r 1 eiwani .uman AnKita l sjwani, Age - l b' yrs, Ankita Tsjwani, Age - 16 y D/b Late Inder Tejwani, daughter of cificeaseci Minor representad by appeila.nt No.1. •• I I Smt ishwari Devi Tejwani, Age - 75 yrs, w/o late Kishanmai Tejwani, mother of deceasea' Ail r/o House No.G-17, Sector - 3, Ekata 'Nagar, Gudiary, Thana Gudiarv, Raipur s'CG) ,^'s^i i^ htesoonaents Oriain; Non-aDDiicants Oham Akka, S/o Shri EK Nitish Akka, Temp Address : C/b Ashok Kumar Mar'vah S/o Sadnuram Mat'»vah, R/o Near Bahadurpara Market, Brij Raj Nagar, Post & Thana - Brij ' Raj Nagar, Distt ~.^^ ^ -ji v^.i suyuuci ^'sj'u^sc^^ ^L/iiv^i i iUU'f NO.OR-23-A-3181) Ashok Kumar Marwah S/o Sadhuram Marwah, Occupation Qi s^^fy^^^.nj-. hl"\'m:y 5 •ni^"i/rii sy Q-"-?"-s DUssinybs?, n^di Dcfi I'dUU[ r'dsci Market. Post & Thana - Brij Raj Nagar, Distt Jharsuguda (Orissa) (Drivei- Truck No.OR-23-A-SI 81) Djvisional Manager, The New India L-i Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisionai OTfice : Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Raipur (CG) (Insurance Co. Truck - OR-23- A-3181) Mlsc. Aooeal 173 of MotorVehicl' Present: Shri S.S. Raiput, counsel for the appeiiants. !27*" Octo! 'Vff ne ronowina oraer OT tne vas oassed Dv ^^"IjS^V '^P^l^l^;, ^,<sjl= Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsei for the appel'ants Js "eard on i.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in Tiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of 'earned counse! for ths aDoellants and the Qrounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the sppe'lants have succeeded In showina sufficient cause forthe delay in fiiina the appeal. 3} I.A. No. 01/2010. therefore, is aiiowed ahd the deiav jn fliina the aDoeal is hereby condoned. •iu/ 1 i rf '4) Shri S.S. Rajput, ieamed counsel for the appellants is heard'on admission. 5) The appeliants are seekina. enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14I" Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai'') vide award dated 17 ns 901 n naa'aari in fiiaim P.asp Mn 00/7009 i^U U S i-^iSlSlig ltu'%-u?iS» i Mi^. ^i^'f ^-,Wtu/iuf. ^^Si^S^^i-i^^^^^^S^^S^^^^^^^^^S^^^SS^^'S^^SS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^ '5^g^3;^:^^%<^^^^^^^^^^^^S$^;^^&i^^^^^,i^^ .""''-f"2 ;E ^ass^ j '25--^,.>f >,.„ w',y 6) As against the compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- ciaimed by the appeilants/ c.laimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughters and mother of deceased Inder Tejwani, by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehlcles A.ct, for his death in the motor sccident on 27.11.2008, the Tribunal av/arded a total sum of Rs.6,59.000/- as comDensation alona with interest (8) 7.5% Der innum from the date of f'ling of the daim petition tili the date of aciua! Bavment. I' ' rf* 1 PD9113HIS 7) Shri S.S. R.ajput, learned counsel vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.6,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiDlier of 13: and in awardina low comDensation of Rs.6,59,000.'- oniv. I? 8) !n a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded bv the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circ-umstances of the case. it shouid nelther be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanzs. 9) Now we shai! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,59,000/- awarded by tne Tribuna! is just and' proper Gompensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Inder Tejwan! used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month by vrorking as Salesman in two firms, nameiy, S.R. Enterprises and S.R. Sarees, the f. ^^^^^^^^^^^^s^^^^^^si^@^;;^'E-%%;insit?^\ ::.s^SSt^ t c. 4 evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. VVe, therefore, do not find anv fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in dlscarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) The deductjon of 1/3 of the income of the deceased tov/ards his persona! expenses also cannot be found fauit with in vlew of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Sved reDorted in (2009)2 Court 22S. 12) The multipiier of 13 seiected.by the Tribuna! consia'ering that deceased Inder Tejwani was found to be in the age group of 45-50 years also cannot be found fault wlth in vlew of the dictum of the A.oex Court in the case of Verma (Smt1; and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and arsother, reported in 6 SCC 121, wherein mu!tipljer of 13 has been prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years. 13) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awardlng substantiai amount of Rs.35,000/- under other heads. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' deoendencv bv the Tribunai or the muitiDlier selected, 15) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.6,59. l^^M awarded bv the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadeauate so as to warrant enhancement in this appe< BISSKSKB^BI 16) The appeai filed .by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby aismissed summanly. Sd/- Chief Justice ninimi Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge IB^. •"s'