Judgment:
(MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988)
RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.
1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.36/2005.
2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant unfortunate mother of deceased Deepak Kumar Dhruv by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 26.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,06,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
3) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,500/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,06,000/- only.
4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,06,000/- 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 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.
6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7) True, the claimant pleaded that her son Deepak Kumar Dhruv used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by working as mechanic in Bajrang Auto-workshop, no reliable and clinching evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month. Neither the owner of the workshop nor any co-worker in the workshop was examined before the Tribunal by the claimant. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate.
8) The deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal is rather liberal as the deduction could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried 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 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as the sole claimant in the case was mother of the deceased and she was aged about 42 years.
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 claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.
11) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
12) No order as to costs.