HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram' : HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SUN2L KUiVIAR SINHA. J. - APPELLANTS -^ Misc. ADpeai (Cl No. 1273 of 2008 1. Hash, aged about 08 years, 2. Vikas; aged about 1 O years, Both are mlnor; through his mother Smt. Rashmi Sharma 3. Smt. Rashmi Sharma, aged about 29 years, W/o Late Harl Shankar Sharma, All are R/o viJlaae Gatta SEjii, (Karaiha), Tahsi! Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Driver Owner Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Kaiyan, aged about 38 years, S/b Blshuram, By caste Dhurv', R/o Sambaipur, Tahsil & District. Dhamtari (C.G.) Ajay Jain, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Vijay Prakash Jain, R/Q Advanl Gaii, Tahsii & Distt. Dhamtan (C.G.) The Orientai insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Near Baiak Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (C.G.) Rahi Deyi; aged about 53 years; W/o Shri Krishna Prasad Sharma, Krishna Prasad Sharma. aged about 55, S/o Late Jharl Prasad Sharma, Respondent 4 and 5 are R/o vjEiage Gatta Si!fj, (Karaiha), Tahsii Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 1710F,THE VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Puneet Ruparei, Eearned counsej for the appeJlanfs. O RD E R ^: (22"aSeptember,2008) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta. C.J.: Shri Puneet Ruparel, iearned counse! for the appeliants is heard on i.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonatlon of deiay in fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration, we are satlsfled that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in flling the appeai. 3) I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is aiiowed and the deiay in fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Puneet Ruparei, iearned counsel for the appellants js heard on admisslon. 5) The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 13.03.2008, passed in Clalm Case N6.106/2006., 6) The ciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor sons and parents of deceased Harishankar Sharma, daimed compensation of Rs.39,30,000/- by fiiing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act for his death in the motor accident on 03.02.2006 when his Hero Honda motorcyde bearing registration No.C.G, 05- 2896 was dashed by the offending vehicie Tractor-Troiley, bearing ^ ^. reglstration No. C.G. 05-2623, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 7) The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led by the partles held that deceased Harishankar Sharma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.02.2006; the accldent occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor; as the offending vehicie Tractor on the of the accident was insured wlth the Oriental insurance Company Ltd., the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the daimants 8) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum. By deductlng 1/3rd of Rs.60,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.40,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the muJtipiier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.6,40,000/-. By awardlng a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funerai expenses, ioss of estate and loss of consortlum to the widow, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.6,55,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Harishankar Sharma. The Tribuna.1 further directed payment of interest on the above arnount of compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- @ 6% per annum, from the date of fiiing of the dalm petition tiEI the of actual payment. 9) Shri Puneet Ruparei, iearned counsel for the appeSiants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the jncome of the deceased at Rs-60,000/- per annum oniy; in deducting ir ii, (.,. .--^ 1/3rd of Rs.60,000/- towards the personai expenses ofthe deceased; and in awarding iov^ compensation of Rs.6,55,QOO/- only. 10) Though, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Harishankar Sharma used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agricuiture and by running a shop, the evidence ied in that behaif did not establish the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The income-tax returns for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-2006 before the Tribuna! reveaied that the annua! income of the deceased for these years was Rs.50-000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.70,000/-, respectively. The Tribuna!, therefore, taking the average income shown for the above mentioned three assessment years, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum. VVe, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income ofthe deceased by the Tribunai. 11} The deductlon of the usual 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased aiso cannot be found fauit wlth, as the father of the deceased who was one of the daimants and was aged about 55 years must be having his own independent income. 12) The muitipjler of 16 seiected by the TribunaE Is rather on the higher side In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of !ndsa Assurance Co. L,td. Vs. others; reported in (2) TAC-431 (SC), whereJn the muJtiplier of 13 for the deceased aged about 33 years was found to be appropriate. 13) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the ^ assessment of the income of the deceased or the cEaimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the multipiier selected. 14) The appeai, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '-1