I APPELLANTS Claimants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlseARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH I CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJéEV GUPTA CJ HON’BLE SHRI SUNIfL KUMAR s’INHII, J. MA. (C) No.182 or zoos. 1 Smt. Kamala Bai Aswani, Wd/o Dhanraj Aswani, Aged about 36 yrs. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Late Dhanraj Aswani, aged about 17 yrs. 3. Ku. Kchama Aswani, Dio Late’Dhanraj Aswani, aged about 14 yrs. Appellants Nos. are 2 & 3 are represented by legal guardian mother appellant No.1 , All resident of Near of Block Office Arang, Tashll Arang, DisttRaipur (C.G.). VERSU$ Ramanand Rai, S/o Slrpur Rai, aged about 50 yrs, Rm M.S‘ Service Station, Telibandha, Raipur, Distt‘ Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 NON- APPLINTS Smt. Ramvati, W/o RB. Rai, R/o MS. Service Station, Telibandha, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). The United lndia Insurance Co. Ltd. Division Office No.3, 3 Floor 46, Hare Street, Calcutta, By Divisional Office, Kachaharix Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). Basant Ninwade, Dz’o Rama Rao Ninwade, R/o 167, Nagar Nigam Colony, Agrasen Chowk, RaipurfBisjt. 'Raipur (C.G.). 1 '5. MEMO OF MISC; APPEAL UNDER SECTION '173 OF THE OTOR VEHICLES ACT, 199 CA M 4. Present. Shn S C Verma and ShrIA‘L Slngraul !earned counsel for the appellants Shn Dashrath Gupta iearnéd counsel for respondent No 3 l 0 R D E R ‘ (13m May, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the inartles are heard on M.C.P. No.4617/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showmg .suffcient cause for the delay in fling the appeal 3. M.C.P. No_1617/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri S.C. Verma and Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appetlants are heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11*“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal) Vide award dated 31 O1 2006 passed in Claim Case No 18J2005 6. As against the compensation of Rs.42,50,000!— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Dhanraj Aswani by filing a claim petition under ZSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor ;r } i . ‘ lacmdent on 1208 2003 the Tnbunal gwarded a total sum of R5527 000:2 as compensation along With interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fling of the clalm petition hll the date of actuat payment .V 7. ‘ ‘Shri S.C. Verma and Shri A.L. Sinéraul, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Re.§,27,0D0/: only. _8. in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/ Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in/the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 9. The claimants pleadedl‘that deceased Dhanraj Aswani used to earn Rs.5,000/— per ‘montha‘The Tribunal accepted the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- perkmonth. The claimants; therefore, cannot have any grievance so far as the assessment of the income [of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000f- per month is concerned. 10. The claimants’ [dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1!?” of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses 11. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher Side in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case ” of New Indra Assurance Co Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found " I \ { ‘ \ to be appropriate for the deceased aged about 33 years in the said case. r 12. We, therefore, do not find any sciopev for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribnnal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants’ dependency by the Tribunal or the muitipiier seiected. 13. The appeai, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. f ' ’Sdl— Sdl- Chief Justice i ‘ Sunit Kumar Judge Sinha subbu