JUDGMENT :

1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.20/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that on 21.02.2017, deceased Biharilal Sahu along with his friend Atmaram Tandiya was going from Kanker to his home village Udkuda by his motorcycle. At around 7.00 P.M., near Dhaba 786, a truck bearing registration No. C.G.17-H-1133 which was being driven by respondent No.1 was parked by him negligently in the middle of the road without keeping the indicator on in violation of the traffic rules. Due to said parking, deceased Biharilal Sahu collided with the said truck and suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. Accident was reported to the Police Station- Kanker based upon which crime bearing No.70/2017 under sections 337, 304A of IPC was registered against respondent No.1-driver.

3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition under sections 166 (1) & 140(1) of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the accident, the deceased, a 30 years old, was a 'Mason (Raj Mistri)' by profession and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, and thus, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,46,000/- was claimed under various heads. However, the Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof, by the impugned award granted compensation to the claimants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award by the Claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be modified and enhanced. He further submits that the learned Claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 3750/- per month contrary to evidence adduced before the learned tribunal as deceased was doing the work of mason and he was getting Rs.8,000/- per month and the accident took place in the year 2017 and for that year the minimum wages has been fixed by the State Government is Rs.250/- P.D. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Somwati in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 717:: (2020) ACJ 2321, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 620, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189 and this Court’s order dated 09.06.2021 passed in MCC No. 256/2021 (Smt. Laxmi Bai & others Vs. Bhushan Singh @ Tinku and others).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned award.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. 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.

8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

9. In the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.3,750/- per month. The accident took place on 21.02.2017 and at the time of accident, minimum wages for the skilled worker was Rs. 6,648/- per month as fixed by the State Government, therefore, the income of the dec