..^ L^y' ,r7 ,••'•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Respondents (Non-applicantsl IVIisc Appeal (0 No. 1338 of 2009 1 Smt. Sushila Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Gariba Nirmalkar, aged about 47 years. 2 Ganesh S/o Late Shri Gariba Nirmalkar, aged about 24 years. 3. Ku. Meera D/o Late Shri Gariba Nirmalkar, aged about 22years. Alt R/o Adarsh Nagar, Durg, P.S. Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1 Shravan Kumar S/o Shri Bhikhram Sahu, aged about 23 years, R/o Near Pani Tanki, Shakti Nagar, Durg, P.8.- Mohan Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG.). 2 Masood Khan S/o Mahmood Khan, R/o Marfat Abdulia Road Wage, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Through Khalid Hussain, S/o Abid Hussain, R/o Near Irani Dera, Kelabadi, Durg, Thasil & Distt. Durg (C.G.). 3 Khalid Hussain S/o Abid Hussain, R/o Near Irani Dera, Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.). 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Parmanand - Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, Durg (C.G.). Miscellaneous Appeal underSeGtion 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Farah Minhaz, counsel for respondents No. 1,2 &3. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (25th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.06/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.42,84,422/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother, brother and sister of deceased Rakesh Nirmalkar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 19.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,88,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-12-ZC/1650 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the tnsurer of the offending vehicle Truck has not ffled any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same, now, has attained finality. ''"".ic 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.48,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.48,000/- with the multiplier of 1 2, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,76,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,920/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.5,88,920/-, which was rounded off to Rs.5,88,900/- and the same was awarded to the claimants as compensation for the death of deceased Rakesh Nirmalkar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,88,900/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Jiendra Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,88,900/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive compensation of Rs.5,88,900/- to the claimants. '.'•'•-...t •..a..^-1 ,y 8) Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 and 3, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Tuck also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Couri:s / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,88,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) Deceased Rakesh Nirmalkar was aged about 31 years on the date of the accident. He was unmarried and the ctaimants are his mother, brother and sister. It has come in the evidence of AW/1 Smt Sushila Bai that she had another son namely Raju, who was working at Jaipur. Claimant No.2 Ganesh is also son of claimant No.1 Smt Sushila Bai. As such, it is apparent that claimant No.1 Smt Sushila Bai and claimant No.3 Ku Meera were not wholly dependent on the income of the deceased Rakesh Nirmalkar, as he was not the only son/brother of these two claimants. 12)i Claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about.the assessment of the income of ttle deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.1,44,000/- per annum as the claimants themselves pleaded and proved the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month only. 13) The deduction of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado and others Vs L Ravindra and others reported in (1998) 8 Suprement Court Cases 633. 14) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that the deceased was unmamed on the date of the accident and the claimants are his mother, brother and sister and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731. 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Trtbunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 16) Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.5,88,900/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, who are mother, brother and sister of deceased Rakesh Nirmalkar cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 17)_ The appeal filed by the appellants/daimants .-for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 18) No order as to costs. _ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangaath Chandrakar Judge <;^-^^