IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU V ’ DIVISION BENC ‘ OR . RAKR J CIAM HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ ‘ « ' HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDA isc Apeal No 855 of 2004 pella‘nts ; , rigihl‘A’lia‘nt m alsall Mahurkar aged about 2‘: e' / at h Sana ajanan Mahurkar aged about 62 years S/o Shn KanhujIMahurkar S Sh t 5 l ar R y u Roshanl Mahurkar aged about 1 ears D/o ShnGajanan Mahurkar . All r ‘ N Reeldent of Veer Savarkar Naga ‘ G . ; mt mdu Ba! Mahurkar aged abou 6 years W/o Shn Gaanan Mahurk ajendra Mahurkar aged about 23 ears Slo ShnGajanan Mahurkar K 8 . y eerapur Po Of aruHCG E Pht rs} ’S O R g nn rigabn- urusotam Bhor aged about 8 yea /o Shn Chandra ocupatron -- Driver - H R H ‘ 1 M p 1 ‘ .OaEppcis Apg St Vh 3 lyagsg do, ’ Le Sn jy ’ H st fce Tatrbandh ‘ Rp) r VRSUS ‘7 ee dets Omm Apolieants: otor Veh cle A es hnss SA at s ypu counsel for the appellant ‘av counsel for respondent No h p N 3 Mushra counsel for resondent o P}i‘ént s R hn “nas 09“ December, 201 (? 0) :T pl hls Is claimants apea or enhancement of th ompensaion awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Acciden C d laims Tribunal Raipur (for short the Tribunal) Vide award date n the motor accident on 22 10 2003 the Tri m of Rs 5 22 mpensation alon Wit m rom the date of fling of the claim etition 'n’a close sorulny; of the entire evidence l ehi T g ruck bearin registraion t M ct 2 :ORDER f e ct t i bunal x u 000/- as co g h ‘annu f p r o t ed , \ vcle ate 'of«the’ accident was insured“ with the‘ Orie‘nt‘al Insuranc ompany Limited the Insurance Company was liabie to pa, d egi cpt h an omensaion of te claimts ) 4: he Tnbunal assessed the total Income of the deceased s 1200/— per month By deducting the busmess expenditur t r and other anoillary expenses Including the rent for the sho, th Tribunal tassessed e Income of the deceased frm hr usmessat R :'OII/- per month and Rs 48 OOOI- per annum B deducting 1/3'“ of Rs 48 OOOI- towards the personal expenses o he deceased the claimants dependency was assessed a s 32 OOI- per annum By multiplying the annual deendency o Rs 32 000/- with the multiplier of 1 6 the compensation was worked ‘ ut to Rs5 12000I- By awarding further sum of Rs 10000l- uner other heads the Tribunal awarded a total sum of V Rs 5 22 000 a f ount f _ urther directed payment of Interest on the above am o ompensation of s 5 22 GOOI- @ 6% per annum from the date o ‘h p lt S Rajput leamed counsel for the appellant ehemently argued that the Tnbunal has erred tn assessing thegf; ’7' gross-Income and net Income of the deceased from busrness at Rs 12,000/- and Rs4000l- per month respectively, rn selectrn g ltlplrer of 1,16; :iand ‘lnj awarding {flowiscompensat Rs 5 22 000/. onl c R f ' te rung of the clanm etmon tu S s ~ v C y T at} R 0 e > p e t int o s ‘ b ;4’, y Vi _ f 1. t t a’ R O p f ' - * o " d s compensation to the claimants for the death o i a f f /- g u io i i y 6 - ) « the 0nental msurance Coma submitted that the Tnbuna has lIberall awarded excesswe sum Rs 5 22 OOOI- as compensation to the claimants ?) Shn Ayt Yadav teamed counsel for respondent N92 th owner of the offending vehicle supported the award : t8) In a motor accrdent claim case what Is Important ts that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts I Tribunals should be ‘ just and proper compensatlon In the facts and ctrcumstances of thee ' ‘ I f case lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor / a bonanza 9) - Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of‘ s522 OGOI- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper ‘claum petition pteaded thatithe ‘ , e , ross; come of the deceased as Transport Booking Co ' Agentlwas between Rs 12 000-15 OOOI- per month The Widow of " ' the deceased AW1 Smt Vaishali Mahurkar however in‘ herl' - eVidence before the Tribunal stated that her husband used to earn: ' Rs 509-600/- per day The Tribunal on the above pleadins and evrdence assessed the gross-income of the deceased ’ Rs 12 000/- per month i 1) On due consideration of the submissmns ofdearne or the parte; andathe eviden ed by the claimants f the deceased an adings in that l ; o th e 'clalm petition we are satisfie t _ ' d h ‘ L ‘ pny Limited on the other hand l y of ' / ,5 e * ; p L ‘ ‘R i d m‘ ' _ _r T : g z at d ‘ ‘ _f is c‘ l b' of thé deceased by the‘Tribunal cannot be said to be on the'Iower side. 1‘2) The Tribunal after deducting. the expenses made by the d t eceased towards the salary of his two embloyees and the ren aid for his shop assessed the net income of the deceased Rs.4,000/— per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. The Tribunal by deducting the usual 113'“; of Rs.48,000/- towards the persona xpenses of the deceased, assessed th‘e claimants’ dependenc Rs.32;000I- per annum. 13) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that deceased Sanjay Mahurkar was 39 years of age on the date of the accident and in view of th ‘ e recent dictum ofythe Apex Court in the case of Saria Vanna (Smt) and others ‘Versus‘ Delhi Transport gorporation and another reported in (1009) 6 supreme Court‘Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years 14)2 For the foregoing‘reasons, We do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ‘\ 15) The appeal, ’filed by' the appellants/ claimants fo enhancement of the compensation, therefore; aisj‘liableJo §b dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6) No order as to cost 1 s. Sd/— Chief Justice p at l e y at . r e N r