HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DJVISEON BENCH Coram : HON^BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! T.P. SHARMA, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1140 of 2007 APPELLANTS ADpJicants Non-ApDEIcants 1. Smt. Shanti Patro w/o late Sudarshan Patro @ Sudha, aged about 33 years. 2. Ku. Sunita Patro, d/o late Sudarshan Patro, age 17 years. 3. Ku. Anita Patro, d/o late Sudhan Patro, age15years. 4. Ku. Sarita Patro, d/o iate Sudarshan Patro, age 13 years. 5. Dinesh Kumar Patro, S/o. iate Sudarshan Patro, age 10 years. [Appeilant no. 2 to 5 minor, through naturaj guardian mother, Smt. Shanti Patro Appellants no.1] [Al! of resident of viilage-Puraina, Thana-Bhilai-3, TahsiI-Patan, District Durg, C.G.] Versus 1. Abdui Quadjr S/o Suttar, aged Musllm, R/o Raja Ta!ab, Raipur. Owner of offending vehide [Mini Bus no. C.G.04/E/0283] 2. Javed @ Jabir, S/o. Jakore Miya, aged about 25 years, Musilm, R/o Sehind Bhajapa, Rajbandha Talab, Thana Modhapara, Raipur, Driver of IVIini Bus. 3. Branch Manager, Office - The United india insurance Compafty Ltd, Amar Compiex, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandhari, Raipur (C.G.) C/o. Divisional Manager, Office - The United indla Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chouk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Smt. Meera Jaiswai, learned counsel for the appeliants. ORDER sth (15rn September, 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Smt. Meera JaiswaJ, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admisslon. 2. The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.04.2007, passed in Ciaim Case No. 114/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.21,39.000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Sudharshan Patro @ Sudha by fliing a cSaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,24,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment.* 4. Smt. Meer^ Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensatipn of Rs.5,24,600/- only. n 5. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Sudharshan Patro @ Sudha used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of ciinching nature. The Tribunaf, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month and Rs.43,200/- per annum on its own estimate. 6. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,600/- per month and Rs.43,200/- per annum. 7. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tnbunal at Rs.28,800/- by deductlng usual 1/3rd of Rs.43,200/- towards the personai expenses ofthe deceased. 8. The multiplier of 1 7 setected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering the fact that deceased Sudharshan Patro @ Sudha was aged about 35 years on the date ofthe accident. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the daimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the multipfier selected. 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is.hereby dismissed summarify. Sd/- Qiief Justice nimmi Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ ^