HmHCpURT,OFTHB_CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. DB: Hon'ble Suuil Kumar Sinha & Hosi?ble R.L. Jliaawar, J^J M|sc,,AppeaL(C|^Jio. 457 of 2006 APPBLLANT RESPONDENTS Abdul Aziz Khan, s/o Late Shri Abdul Jabbai' Khan, aged about 55 years, R/o Juni Liiie, BUaspur (C.G), Versiis 1. Jai Kumai' Guiiiaiii, aged about 18 years, s/o Shrichaiid Guniaiii (Driver) 2. Shrichaiid Guniaiii, aged about 49 years, s/o KishaachaD.d Gui-naiii, R/o Rishi Colony, Dayalbaiid, Bilaspur (C. G) [owner] 3. Unite-d India Insuraiice Conipany Limited, tlirough Braiich Maaager, Braiich Office BUaspur, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G). MBMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Apsearaiiee: Shii Viinlesli Vajpai, counsel for tlie appellant. ORALORDER (1S.04.2009) The followiag order of tlie Court. was passed by SUWIL KUMAR SINHA^J, Heard on I.A.No.4267/2006, which. is aii application for condonation ofdelay iii tllin.g tiie appeal. Office report shows that the appeal is baiTed by 645 days of Imiitation. \ ^) M.A(C). No.457/2006 On due consideration of the subm.issions raade by leaiiied counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appeUaat has sufficienfly explaiaed the delay iii filmg tlie appeal. Accordingiy, I.A.No.4267/2006 is aUowed aiid fhe delay io. filhig the appeal is hereby condoned. Also heaiTl on admission. The appellaiit/clairaant has filed this appeal for.enhaiiceBient oftlie ainount of coinpensation awarded ui Claim Case No.49/2004 by tlie 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, vide award dated 24th Sept. 2004. The appellaiit/claioiaiit is ftie fatlier of deceased uainely Iraraii Khan, a boy aged about 18 yeai's who clied in. tlie motor accident on 08.11,2003 when his Motorcycle was dashed by tlie offenduig Motorcycle Bajaj Pulsor beamig Regn, No. C.G. 0-10 BA/ 2546, The claioiant pleaded that his son was eaniisig Rs.100/- per day as he was working as a Motorcycle mechanic. On his own calculations, he claiDied a sum of Rs.47,74,000/- as tlie amouiit of conipensation 011 account ofdeath ofdeceased Iinran Khaa. The Tribunal recorded a findihg that tlie deceased was eamiag Rs.15000/- per amiuni. This was on tiie basis of notional iacoBie prescribed ni second schedule ii/s 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. After deductiiig l/3rd towards personal expenses of tlie deceased, tlie dependency of tlie appellant was detei-mined as Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal used raultiplier of 16 aad the amount of conipensatioil was worked out as Rs. 1,60,000/-, By awaixliag a further sum of Rs.15,000/- under oflier heads, a total suin of Rs.1,75,000/- was awairled by tlie Clamis Tribunal as coiupensation to tiie appeUaiit on accoiuit of death of deceased Iinraii Khaii. On the sadd amount, tlie Tribunal also awarded iaterest at the rate of 9% per aiinum froin tfie date of fitmg of tlie claioi petition i.e. 01.04.2004 till its realization. Learned cozuisel for fhe appellaat argiies tliat fhe Tribiinal has assessed a low iiicoine of the deceased aiid low com.pensation has been awaided to flie appeUaiit. ^) M.A(C). No.457/2006 liiwniiiiiiiiiiii^ So far as the uiconie of the deceased is concenied, tlie appeUant/claioiaut himself pleaded tliat tlie deceased was earnuig Rs.100/- pex day. Even tf we assume the said contention to be coiTect, tiie monfhly uiconie of tlie deceased would conie to Rs,3000/~ aiid the annual nicome would coine to Rs.36,000/-. Siiice tlie deceased was uninaiTied aiid tlie a^pellaiit is tlie only claimaiit, therefore, piiiicipaUy 50% would be deductible froin ttie said amount and the dependency even on tlie basis of tlie pleadiiigs of tlie appellaat, would coiiie to Rs.1500/- per montli aiid Rs.18,000/- per aanum. Siace fhe appellaiit (claiinaiit) is pai'ent, tlierefore, tlie multipUer would be 10 as per tlie dictuni of the Apex Court iii the matter of Munidpal Ccirp^ration ©fGreaterB^mtomi -t?s- Le^cynjan lyer and an^ther (2003] 8 SCC 731 aad fhe amount of conipensation would coiae to Rs. 1,80,000/-. Even if we add a furtlier suin ofRs.10,000/- under ofher pei-missible heads, the total amount wozild be Rs. 1,90,000/-. So fax' as iiiterest part is concenied, it woiild not be at tlie rate of9%per aiinmii aad tlie perinissible iaterest woulcl have been 6% per aanuni, tlierefore, even if we calciilate fhe amount of compensation by adinittiag the iacome pleaded by ttie appeUaiit, it will come alinost equivalent to tlie ainount already awarded by the Claiins Tribunal. Hen.ee, we do not fiiid aiiy scope for enhaiicenient of th.e conipensation ia tliis appeal, The appeal deserves to be aiid is accordiiigly dismissed at fhe raotiou stage, itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Rac