6^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. ^ ^ Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No.199 of 2008 1 Mansingh, S/o late Ramashankar, aged about 44 years 2 Smt Sunita W/o Mansingh, aged about 40 years 3 Ku Bharti Singh, D/o Mansingh, aged about 15years, Minor(nowMajor, aged about ISyears) All residents of Qr No.15/9, North Vasundharanagar, Bhilai - 3, District Durg (CG) VERSUS 1 Puranlal Sahu, S/o Bodhanlal Sahu, aged about 31 years, Resident of Village Banbaghera, Police Station Somni, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon 2 VS Khandelwal, S/o Shrinath Khandelwal, aged about 52 years, Resident of Qr No.C/1, Janta Quarter, Padmanabhpur Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg (CQ) .»-. s: Mjscellaneous appeai under Section 173 (21 ofthe IVlotor Vehicles Act Present : Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. ' None for respondentsNo.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counse! for respondent No.3. ^ .».. 1"'.»s •\ ORDER (05th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Deepak Kumar Singh are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31 .07.2007, passed in Claim Case No.192/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.1,40,90,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Deepak Kumar Singh by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- only, though deceased Deepak Kumar Singh was a brilliant student and had a bright future and he would have extended great support to his parents in their old age. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer pf the offending vehicle truck, on the other handsupported the award and contended that as deceased Deepak Kumar Singh / f .:-s^' X was not having anyincome of hls own on the date ofthe accident, the compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compen^ation to be awarded by the Courts / 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. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case 7) Deceased Deepak Kumar Singh was aged about 21 years on the date of the accident. He was a student of B.Com 2nd year. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Deepak Kumar Singh used to earn Rs.3,000- 3,500/- per month from tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led in that behalf beforethe Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting 1/3r 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 considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme ^ ."^ '•^, ^.^// '^.'?yy Court Cases225 andSarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme CourtCases 121. 9) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents and younger sister of the deceased 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, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parentsof the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed10. 10) The Tribunal has -been quite liberai in awarding substantial amount of Rs.22,000/- under other heads. 11) 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' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K.Agarwa! Judge subbu fs X ^·.