Jl B B^. Claimants Smt Ful Bas Singh, w/o iate IVIangal Singh, aged about 25 years 2 Manish Singh, s/o late Mangal Singh, aged about 4 years isha, d/o Mangal Singh, aged about 1 Vi yesrs Through their naturai guardian Smt Ful Bas Singh, mother appellant No.1 . AII are r/o viilage - Chapda, Police Station - Odagi, Tahsii - Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG) Non-claimants 4 Ashok Kumar, s/ Laxam Singh, aged about 30 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Ka\a Maanjan, Potice Station - Odagi, Tahsil - Surajpur, DisSrict Sarguja (CG) Laxmi Singh, s/o Bechan, Occupation - Owner, r/o Kala Maanjan, Police Station - Odagi, Tahsil - Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG) Manbodh, s/o Banager, Occupation - Owna-, Polics Station - Odagi, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG) Unitd India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office, near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) ^^^S'^^^^&SSi^i •^ ^ M.A.C. No. 539 of 2010 IVIiscelianeous Appeal under Sectjon 173 of ^- Present : Shri Sarfaraj Khan, counsetfortheappellants. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Ms Sarina Khan, counsel for respondent No.4. ISt The fol order of the Court was passed by This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 2" Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awara' dated 10.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.169/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,50,000/-, claimed by the appeliants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Mangai Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 .of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.5,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Mangal Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.05.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of :t;sHias;'- '•^:L.ss-fS- IAC.No. 539 of 2010 the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.CG-15/A 2162; as the above offending vehicie Tractor on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company 'could not breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance to pay compensation to the ciaimants. establish any was liabte against the have now 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By deductinc the usual 1/3 of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, t'ne claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/- with the multiptier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,10,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mangal 'Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- ^•7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sarfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- |E» ;'~-^&'i^?i®!5y^a^s^^;§^^^^s^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^fi^ " ?*^^^ Gi^^f^^.^/^s's ''-^ 4 M.A.C. No. 539 of 2010 per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- only. 7) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel and Ms Sarina Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 the United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court 1 the case Bhakra reported in 2008 AIR Smt Fui Bas Singh, widow of provided a compassionate contended that as claimant No.1 deceased Manga! Singh has been by the State Government, the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeai. 8) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Ashok Kumar and No.2 Laxmi Singh, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Tractor also supported the award. 9) In 3 motor accident claim case what is important is that the isation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a' bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whefher the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) True,.the claimants pleaded that deceased Mangai Singh used to earn Rs.5,000/- as Shiksha Karmi and Rs.3,000/- from .\ IAC.No. 539 of 2010 agricutture. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no documentary proof was produced before the Tribunal for establishing that deceased Mangal Singh had any agricultural land at ail. The salary certificate of deceased Mangai Singh (Ex.P/9) produced by the claimants before the Tribunal and proved by AW/3 Kripanidhan, Head Master ofthe school where the deceased was working established the income of the deceased as Shiksha Karmi at Rs.3,921/- per month only. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of ths deceased by She Tribunai at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. 12) Deceased Mangal Sing'n was working as Shiksha Karmi and was getting salary of Rs.3,921/- per month. It has come in the evidence of AW/1 Smt Ful Bas Singh, widow of deceased ^ylanga] Singh that after the death of her husband Mangai Singh in the motor accident, she has been provided compassionate appointment by the State Government and she was getting salary of Rs.5,600/- per month. 13) The Apex Court while considering the relevance of the fact of compassionate appointment provided to one of the ciaimants in the jarwal (supra) observed in paras 12 and 13: "12. But we find that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. it is pointed out that respondent No.1 was getting Rs.4,700/- pm 6 MAC.No. 538 of 2010 and a residence has been provided to her and actually the compassionate appointment was given immediately after the accident. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable. However, the accident took place more than 14 years back and it would not be desirable to send the mater back to ths Tribuna! for fresh consideration. A Sum of rupees five lakhs has been deposited vide this Court's order dated 1.11.2004. We are of the considered view ttTat in view of the background facts, it is just and proper that the sum of Rupees five lakhs aiready deposited shali be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants in full and final settlement of the ciaim relatable to the death of the deceased. It is for the Tribunal to fix the quantum of fixed deposit and the amount to be reieased to the ciaimants." 14) The Apex Court, thus, in the above quoted case awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. as just and proper compensation to the claimants. 15) Now reverting to the present case, admittediy claimant No.1 Smt Ful Bas Singh has been provided compassionate by the State Government and she is drawing salary' of per month i.e. much more than Rs.3,921/- which the drawing as salary on the date of the accident. 16) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counse! for the parties; the fact that claimant No.1 Smt Ful Bas Singh, widow of deceased Mangal Singh has been provided Rs.5,600/- was compassionate appointment by the State Government after the CSSSSs,:,5i^!wa-ss&SM:';^:J:.^ sas.iliasaeSSSSSsSsissiSaailSses.i :^:fr^'^':-'^ ••.•:-^--:^. ''^-^—' ''-: V1. NIAC.No.538 of 2010 death of her husband in the motor accident ; claimant No.1 padma Smt Ful Bas Singh is drawing salary of her husband deceased Mangal Singh as salary; and in view of the above Court in the case of Bhal .5,600/- per month and getting only Rs.3,921/- ed dictum of the Apex Kanta Aggarwal (supra), we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 17) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 18) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ^•^dr^ fge ffls t!lll ISS.tffl