»/; Anil Kumar S/o. Late Katharam Aged about 13 years Minor through naturai guardisn mother Smt. Sumrit Bai, W/o Siyaram, R/o Viliage Ghasitola, Post Somatola Thana and Tahsil Mohala District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) » Farid Khan, S/'o. Nasheer Khan aged 23 years, R/o Village Parasghat, Post Ektaknhar, P.S. & Tah. Mohala, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Kamlesh Kumar, S/o. Mangayaram R/'o. Village Birhlkala, Post Thana Ambagarh-Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisional Manager New India insurance Company Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) m Shri Goutam etrapal, learned counse! for the appeliant. Shri Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent None for respondent No.2. Shri SudhirAgrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The following order of the Court was passed Appellant Anil Kumar has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24-09-2004, passed in Claim Case No. 30/2003. 2, Appeliant/ciaimant Anil Kumar, a boy aged about 1-3 years claimed compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of his jrandmother Shama Bai in the motor accident on 23-09-2002, when she was dashed by the offending vehicle Metador bearing reglstration No.C.G.-08-B-0242, resulting in her instantaneous death on the spot itse!f. The claimant further pleaded that his irandmother Shama Bas used to eam Rs.70/- per day as iabourer. 3. The driver of the offendina vehicle Metador the claim and was proceeded exparte before the TribunaL 4. The ov/ner and the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The insurer took the plea that the Metador was being plied in breach of the poiicy conditions and the;d.river of the Metador was not holding a va!id driying licence. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Shama Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drlver of the offending vehicle f /y^ i %sea'l. M % Metador; as fhe offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. The Tribunal considering that deceased Shama Bai was aged about 60 years awarded a lump-sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the clalm' petit'on til! the date of actua! payment. 7. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned cdunsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in not computing the compensation on the basis of the income of the deceased; the clalmant's dependency; by using the appropriate multiplier; and in awarding a lump-sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant. 8. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicie Metador, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has bsen quite libera! in awarding substantial amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant though the claimant was not at ail dependent on deceased Shama IBI. 9. Shri Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent atso supported the award. Though, the claimant pleaded that his grandmother Shama Bai used to earn Rs.70/- per day as labourer, the evidence of AW2 Sumrit Bai, the mother of appellanVclaimant Anil Kumar is to the contra. tn para 7 of her cross-examination, she stated that she was r earning Rs.20-25/- per day as Sabourer and deceased Shama Bai also used to get the same amount. She further admitted that deceased Shama Bai used to work only for 7-10 days in a month. It has further come in her evidencs that after the death of Shama iai her son ciaimant Anil Kumar is living with her and her second husband Siyaram and the expenses of his maintenance and education are being borne bv them. 11. Considering the above evidence of AVrf2 Sumrit Bai about the incQme of the deceased and the permissible muitiplier in the age group of 60-65 years, we are 6f the opinion that the compensation even if it is to be worked out on the basis of the income of the deceased and the claimant's dependency by multiplying it with the appropriate muttiptier, would not be more than Rs.50,000/-, which has been awarded bv the Tribunal. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunai. 13. T'ne appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. nimmi Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge '%•>--