n ssBBB .<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Claimant Respond^nte hflisc. Appeal No. 41 of 2005 Shiv Prasad @ Vanaspati S/o Lal Singh, aged about 45 years, caste Nut, R/o village Bhakkadhplur, P.S. & Tahsil Pathalgaon, distt. Jashpur. VERSUS 1. Laxminarayan, s/o, Darasram, aged about Gopal Das, aged about 30 years, occupation driver, R/o Vill. Charpara, P.S. Baloda, distt. Janjgir Champa. 2. Mst. Parvati Devi, Jaje Omkar Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Vill. Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, distt. Korba. 3. The New India Insurance Company, Branch Office Korba, distt. Korba. WIISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondenf No.3. ORDER ith (29'"IVIarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev,Gupta, C.J. AppellanU Claimant Shiv Prasad @ Vanaspati is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional / f^ '~" '•SSvji-ifs ^.s^.^ S ^CT'yRi!, 1 -~y? Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.37/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.47,40,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant, unfortunate father of deceased Raju @ Rajkumar by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motar Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.10.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,26,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum frcun the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel. for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- only. 4) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.3,26,000/- as compensation to the claimant who is father of deceased Raju @ Rajkumar. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shoukl 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.3,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) True, the claimant pleaded that his son Raju @ Rajkumar used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month, no cogent and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of theincome of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,250/- per month. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his persorial expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as he was unmarnied on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 9) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side as the sole claimant in the case is father 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 parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. ^10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the daimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. -_ _ ——...„ -.s^ ! Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/- | judge ChiefJustice P subbu