/f ^"* ^ n E. '^fSy~-%'s ^ '•<sap- •jg Y:^^ &v i'ESI C.laimants Isc. Appeal (Ci No.139 of 1 Devdas Chaterjee iankimchandra Chaterjei le 60 S/i Smt Manika Devdas Chaterjee i,a^ Arfp R9; f^\f, /~t<^'— 'T, w/o ioth R/o C-22)7, Kalindi Housing Board Estate, Kolkata Non-applicants i, S/o B Singh, 38 years, ara and Shani Tempie, PS Chawni Distt Durg Smt Laxmi Bai Tamrakar, Wd/o Parmanand Tamrakar, Block 58, Plot 5, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg The' New India Insurance Co Ltd., iranch Office, Parakh Bhavan, Station Road, Durg icies MI Present : Shri Raja Sharma, counsei fort'ne appeli None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondents No.3. ^h RS The following order of the Court was pass< Fit ^ [y W-. . .>^c\. ^'.c'^ \ l€SBS';, " \.. '9sw€/ ''^'^•^--es^ The unfortunate parents of deceased Somnath C.hatterjee are the appeilants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10 Additional Motor AccidenS Claims Tribunai, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.07.2006, passed in Claim Case No.322/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.1,10,96,131/-, claimed by ths appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Somnath Chatterjee by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.05.2005, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.8,94,000/- as compensstion to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from-the date ofthe filing ofthe ciaim petltion till the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that the claimants' son Somnath Chatterjee died on account of the Injuries sustained by him 'in the motor accident on 05.05.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration Np.CG-07/ZA-0181; as the above offending vehicie Bus on the dste of the accicjent was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the po!icy conditlons, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the ciaimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribuna! have now attained finality. iT1""^.."^ 5) The Tribunal assessed the income or' the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.9,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. By multlplying the annuat dependency of Rs.72,000/- with the multipiier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,64,000/-. ^y awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,94,000/- as compensatlon to the claimants for the death of their son Somnath Chatterjee in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,94,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Raja Sharma, isarned counsei for the appeilants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in selecting the iower multiplier of 12 and in awarding'iow compensation of Rs.8,94,000/- only. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Llmited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has erred in seiecting the higher multiplier of 12 as the claimants are parents of the deceased and the father of the deceased vi/as aged about 60 years. 8) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais should be ]ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor 9) Now, we shail examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The Tribunai has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has been qulte liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of another reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 11) The muitipiier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is ce'rtainly on the hig'ner side considering that claimant No.1 Devdas Chatsrjee, father of ihe deceased was aged about 60 years on the date of the accident and claimant No.2 Smt Manika Chaterjee, mother of the deceased was 53 years of age and the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of for the age group between 50-55 yesrs and 8 for the age gr 11 between 55-60 years. That apart, the Apex Court in the case of another, reported in (2003) vyhere the claimants are par should never exceed 10. SC-731, held that in those cases of the deceased, the multiplier 12} The Tribunal has awarded substantial amount of Rs.30,000/- ICi 1 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the incoms of the deceased or the ciaimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected, 14) The appea! filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is !iabie to be dismissed and ES hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu