HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNUL KUMARSiNHA. J. i.A.fC)No.32of20Q9 2. Versus '? Smt. Balka, W/o Kevalram Sahu, aged about 30 years Ku. (^ushiiya, D/o Kevalram Sahu, aged about 14 years Aakash,S/o Keval Ram Sahu aged about 06 years Boby, S/o Kevalram Sahu, aged aboutSyears, No.2 to 4 minore, through natural guardian motherSmt Balka, W/o. Keval Ram Sahu Ail R/o. Village Kuhi, Post Ramtarai, PS Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Dilip Kumar, S/o Devar Ram Jangade, aged about 21 years, R/o Minimata Nagar, Near Pramod Kirana Stores, Kalmana, Nagpur (Maharastra) At Present T.P. Transport Company, Behind Mehta Petrol Pump, beside Ganga I.N., in front of Bhandara Bus Stand, Post and P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur (Maharastra) Ketan Vipin Khakhariya, 105 Gayatri Vihar Plot No.47, Doctor Amedkar Chowk, Nagpur (Maharastra) At Present T.P. / Transport Company, Behind iMehta petrol Pump, beside Ganga I.N., in front of Bhandgra Bus Stand, Postand P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur (Maharastra) <&% v ...f 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sharda Complex, Nagpur, Through : Branch Manager, Oriental Insuranee Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHtCLE ACT.1988 Present: Shri Goutam-Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appeHants. Q1?DER ISt (215lJanuary, The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta.C.J. By aliowing I.A. No.02/2009, the appellants are granted exemption from flling certified copy of the impugned award. 2. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel forthe appellants is heardon I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation ofthe delayinfilingtheappeal. 3. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showingsufficientcause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. I.A. No.01/2009, therefore, isaltowed and the delayof 49 days in flling the appealis hereby condoned. 5. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel forthe appellants 1s heardon admission. 6. The appeltants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded bythe Additional Motor AGCidents , Tribuna! (F.T.C.), .Rajnandga^n (for short 'the Tribunal'), the laims yide ^? 1:£ '> award dated 29.04.2008, passed in Motor Ciaim Case No.37/2007. 7. As against the compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- claimed by the claimants by filing a claim petition under SectiQn 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of Kevalram Sahu in the motor accident on 20.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filingof the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 8. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appetlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- only. 9. The Claimants pleaded that deceased Kevalram Sahu used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as Truck Driver. The Tribunal on the evidence led before it held that deceased Kevalram Sahu in fact, was working as Cteaner and not as Truck Driver and assuch, assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- perannum.By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. Byawarding further sum under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kevatram Sahu in the motor accident. • .1 10. As the deceased was found to be working as Cleaner, we do not find any inflrmityin the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/-per annum. 11. The claimants' de'pendency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by dedycting the usual 1/3 towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 12. The multiplier of 16,selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceased, aged about 33 years in the said case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find anyscope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SanUKumarSmha Judge ^ -..-'.