HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL,J. Appellants Applicants/ Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 819 of 2007 1. Ram Raxit Kashyap, aged 42 years, son of Shri Ram Sanehi Kashyap. 2. Kumari Bai, aged 38 years, wife of Shri Ram Raxit Kashyap, Both are residents of village Chaurabhata, P.S. & tehsil Nawagarh, and district Janjgir- Champa C.G. VERSUS 1. Ram Pratap Sahu, aged 26 years, son of Shri Sakharam Sahu, reasident of village Semra, P.S. & Tehsil Nawagarh, district Janjgir- Champa C.G. (Driver) 2. Udaya Singh, aged 34 years, son of late Shri Jaipal Singh, resident of village Semra, P.S. and Tehsil Nawagarh, district Janjgir Champa C.G. (Owner) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Korba, through the Branch Manager, Kosabadi Chowk, near Niharika talkies, Korba C.G. (Insurer) Memo of appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Neha Verma, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ...•.W""A-:'~^-^ \ ORDER (12th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ctaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.06.2007, passed in Claim Case No.75/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Santosh Kumar Kashyap, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 18.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/-towards the personat expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribynal awarded a total sumof Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Santosh Kumar Kashyap in the motor accident. The •^ Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- only though the appellants' son Santosh Kumar Kashyap would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. 5) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle Metador. 6) Ms. Neha Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Metador from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) In a motor accidentclaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Deceased Santosh Kumar Kashyap was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident. He was a student of 12 standard. It is difficult to believe that a boy aged about 18 years studying in 12 standard can earn Rs.4,500/- per month from tuition, that too in a small village. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly discarded the claimants' evidence aboutthe income ofthe deceased. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf would have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as he 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 Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 11) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side 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 never exceed 10. '••^KC^SKSP-^Q-^W^^^^^U^^^^^.. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) As deceased Santosh Kumar Kashyap was travelling as a Barati in a goods vehicle Metador, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. ,__- - Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge nimmi