Q?) HEGH $GUR“? OF CHHA?TESGARH AT BELASPEJR SNH$EON BENCH CQRA'W HC§N$ELE SHR§ RAJEEV GU?TA, SJ. HGN’BLE SHR§ $EJN§L KUMAR $ENH§, J. WEE §§§LNG$$3 of ”2%8 Memo ef Aogeai under $eetion W3 of the Motor ehiCies Act 1983 W Present : Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsei on behalf of Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned couneei for the appeiiants, Shri Snaiiendra Sha’rma, iearned couneei for respondent No.2. r.) R o E R \ {rem June, 2mm) The feiiowing order oi the Couri was pesed by Raieev Grimes Cue. e Empauania ‘1 Claimant$ 2 Sani Kumaf§ {Ménm D/Q Late Kri3hna 5 Through Yadav, Aged absut years, Representative her guardian & Leg‘ai’ Sushiia Kunvar (Yadav) mother Smt. Sushiia Y'aa‘av " Wio Late Kri5hna Both Rio PS Mohan Nagar, Distrac’c Burg (CG) VER$U$ Resgamiw€g Non-AppE'icanm Smt Sheeia Singh D/o Brijendra Singh Thmugh ‘Singh Roadwayas New Khursipa¥,~GE Road, Bhilai, Dismct - Durg (CG) (Owner of vehicie, Truck N0.CG O7 — 6/0198) (msuranoe Company) 2 Eranoh Manager; The New india insurance Company, in front of Dena Bank, Nandani Road, Bhiiai‘ District — vehicie Truck Burg (CG) (insurer of the C/Q198) No. CG O7 — @ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M‘CP. N0.1&78I2006, a petition for condonation of the dela in fiiing the y appeai 2) On due consideration of the submissions of ieamed counsei for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeiiante have succeeded in showing sufficient oauee fot the deiay in fiiing the appeai. 3) MCP. No.1878/2006; therefore; is aiiowed and the deiay in fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission 5) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated (331372006, passed in Claim Case No.86112004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.14,50,000/— ciaimed by the ciaimants, unfortunate Widow and minor daughtet of deceased Krishna Yadav, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on G7.Q2.2OD3, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/— as compensation aiong with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tiil the date of actua! payment. 7) Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsei for the appellants Vehemently argued that-the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and tn awarding low compensation of Rs.3,50,000/~ only. @ 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kréshna .Yadav used to earn Rs.5,000/— as C!eaner on the Truck, but the empioyer cf .the deceased categoricaliy pleaded that a sum of Rs.2,500f— per month was being paid to the deceased as saiary. !n th§s state of pieadings and evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500l— per month and Rs.30,OQO/7 per annum. 9) The claimants’ dependency atso has been rightty assessed by the Tribunat by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 10) The muitiplier of 16 setected by the Tribunal atso cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Krishna Yadav was aged about 2D yearson the date of the accident. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding a sum of Rs.30,000i— under other heads. i2) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarii . iA l Sd/- Chief Justice X i 5dr— l Judge ‘ i Sun“ Kuma' 3mm: subbu «r