HI6H COURT OF tHi-IATTISSARH AT BILASPUR 68 ;HON''BLE SHRl vTJA'y' KU'MAR SHRlVASTAv'A AN& HON'BLE 5HRI oHIRENbftA MI5HRA, JJ Appellants M^ (O No. 147 OF 2007 1. ^ \. Versus '^,-. Respondents Rq.jesh alias Raju Sohu, son of Late Kedar Nafh Sshu', c^sd 39 y£<3ff*s. Ucc; Businessmen. 2. Smut.Shyaffla Sahu, W/'o. ftajesh !u'^ GE^SI jfc yscr'3, Both R/o. Kua Chowk, Near Daya Ram Sinho's houss, tDcchri PGFG, Durg (C.e.) 1. Saroj Kumar Pandya, son of Kamal Pfindya, aged'- 34 yeurs, R/o. Ward No. 13, near Shiv Mandir', Ahiwara, !>;stt. Ourg C'hanchal Bafna, S/o. Paras Mal Bi3fna, C/o. Chanchal Viisti-aieya, Main Road, AWwara, Oistt. Durg (C.6.) New India Insurance Company Ltd., through ; &ivri3ioncEf Mctnctyer, Divisionai Office, Bhilai, DlsTt. Durg f'f e.\ i.i-.c?./ Present; Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Adwcate for the appeliants. None appears tor the respondents. O R A L O R &£^ (9-2-2007) The ord'er of the Court was passed by bhirendra Mishra, J;- Trte appellonts have pr'eferred this appeal under' Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) aaainst award dated 26-10-2006 passed in Claim CaseNo. 114/2006 by 9" Additjonai Motor" AccidenT Ciaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg by which a sum of fts. 1,84,500/- has been awarded in favour- of the appeiiants. 2. The appeilants preferred a claiffl petition before the iearned Tribunal claiming compensation for death of their son tiepankar aged 11 yeara who sustained Iryuries in tha motor vehlcie accident on 15-11-2004 and died. The Tribunai assesslng the noTlonal income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- ancl further deducting 1/3 ombunt as per Schedule-II of Sectian 163(A) of the Act and appiyi^ multiplier of 15, has assessed The amount of compensation. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground That firstiy the Tribunal was not justified in deductina 1/3 amount froffl the notional income. Reliance is piaced in the matter of moiuu Devi and Onother -v- Musafir Poswan and' another reported in ZOOStl) T.A.C. 6C)9 ('SO. Another llmb of argunient of The appellants Is that no proyision has been made for future prospects^in the income, Therefore, The award impugn&d is inadequate and deserves To the enhanced. 4. We have heard iearned counsel for the appellants and' perused' The impugned aword. IT Is not In dispute that the age of the deceased at The tinie of death was 11 years. In such circumsTdnties, muitiplter of 15 is appfjcable. So far as deduction of 1/3 amount (s concemed, in the judament relied upon by The appeiiont in Man}u &evi's case (supra), it has been heid That the ai«u'dof compensation has to be made by <yplylng muitipiier- method as glven in Schedule - II of Section 163(^) of the Act and from perusai of the cbove Schedule, deductipn of 1/3 amount is requlred to be made from earnina capactTy of The deceased. Though in The above case, no deduction BTOS made by the Hon'bie Supreme Court but the law as laid down in The above jud9ment clearly envisages that in the identical matters muitiplier method as given in Schedule - II of Section l63(A) of the Act 13 applicable; In The instant case also, the [eor-ned Tribunal after correctly assessinq The income as per Schedule II of Sectfon l63(A) of The Act has assessed the compensation at no Rs. 1,84,500/- and there is Irreguiarity or Infirmity Ih the impugned aufard. 5. In the resuit, the appeat being devoid of substance is dismissed in limine.l Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge