Smt. Samarin Bai and Another vs Mangal Singh and Another

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 12-5-2006, passed in Claim Case No. 153/2003. As against the compensation of Rs. 54,03,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate parents of deceased Subhash Singh by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13-4-2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,78,172/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri M.K. Baeg, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued, that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 25,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 2,78,172/- only.

Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, the National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs. 2,78,172/- as compensation to the claimants, who are parents of deceased Subhash Singh.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation 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.

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,78,172/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that their son Subhash Singh used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month from agriculture, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact, it has come in the evidence of claimants'' witness Geeta Bai (A.W. 1) that all the agricultural lands were in the name of claimant No. 2 Sunder Singh, father of deceased Subhash Singh. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 25,000/- per annum on its own estimate.

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income 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 deceased Subhash Singh on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, .

The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 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 claimants'' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.