HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR M.A^o. 1044 of2007 Sihgle Bencfr: Hiah'bleShri Dilip Rapsaheb Deshmukh,J. Appellants Claimants BI! .i : 1 !IE i; .1- !i: >! II :il .ag^. i-'-^-sf" 1, Laxminarayan Chandrakar Son of Shri Banwarilal ^ Chandrakar, aged abdut 62 y^afs: .: ::,'. , ;^, ;:i:..: ;, 2. Smt. Anjani Chandrakar Wife of Shri LaxminaFa^h^ChandraKac.'agediabQut 54 .years.:'. ; . '',:: ::'-'.'.'•' ,' 3. Jagnt Kymar adopted son of Late; Sl^ri Gourishankar Chandrakar, aged about 8 years^;Miner,thRQyghhi^^^^N Srariclfatlier Laxminairayari GliandrakarSon of Shri Banwarilal Ghandrakar. All resident of Shastri Chowk Sadha Road, Kurudr Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.),..;^:.....,.;:,-; Versus : • .' : ', , ' • . •• 1. Abclul jEiBbar Sbh ofAbdul RajjaltQunaishi aged^abbut 4Q years^ Resident Qf GanjRara Kurud, Tahsil Kuryd, District Dhamtari ';(G-G-)::.;:'^.:' •^:^^^ 2. Abdul Rahim Son olAbdlulGaffytQuraishi, aged about 22^years^ Rtesideritlof Mandi Road Kurud, Tahsil Kyrud, DistriGt Dhaitntari :;.::^-G^;.:;'::V.;:.' 3. The Oriental Insurance Gbmpany Limited Branch Office Dhamtari, Near Adarsha Bal MandirDhamtari, DistrictDhamtari(C.G.) Memo ofARpealUnderSection 173 ofthe MoforVehicles Act,1988 Respondents 'Rresent: :, •• ,:' ';'.-^^. ' Shri S.R.Sahu, counsel forthe apRellant. ORAL ORD&R (Passedpnl 1.9.2007) :b- Heard ohadmission. 2. this appeal is directed against the award dated 25 June 2007 passed in claim case No. 82 of 2006 by the Motor Aceidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as the M.A.C.T.) whereby compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- was awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased- Gourishankar Chandrakar, a practicing advdcate. 3. The learned M.A.C.T. rejected the oral testimony of the claimants on the basis of Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 which are the jncome tax returns showing the yearly income ofthe deceased atRs.48,000/-. 4 . The sole ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the learned M.A.C.T. ought t6 have accepted the oral evidence led by the claimants and assessed the monthly income of the deeeased atRs.15,000/-. However, on perusal ofthe impugried award, the above contention is liable to outright rejection because the oral testimony was contradicted by theincome tax returns ofthe deceased. The M.A.C.T. frightly assessed the loss of yearly i.ncome at Rs.48,000/- and appHed multiplier of 16. So far as the multiplier applied by the M.A.C.T. and the amount awarded under conventional heads is concerned, no objection was •^h^- : :: ..' . ;'. ; : . raised by the learned counser,appellants. In this view of the matter, the amount awarded bythe M.A.C.T. does noteall for interference. There is no merit in this appealwhich is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge