HIGHGOURTOF CHHATTiSGARH. BIfcASPUR APPELLANTS ^: RESyONDENTS Misc.ABliteal No. 82 ofZOOS 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, s/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, aged about 30 years, Occupation Hotel 2. Anup Kumar Gupta, s/o late Rameshwar Prasad Gypta, aged • about 15 years, Occupation Student Minor, Natural Guardian, through his brother Mahesh Kumar Gupta, s/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Gupta 3. Smt. Meera Devi, w/o Mahesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 28 years 4. Mamta Gupta, d/o MaUesh Kumar Gupta, aged about Syears (MinQr) 5. Vibha Gupta, s/o iMahesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 6 years (Minor) 6. Pinky Gupta, D/o Mahesh Kuinar Gupta, aged about 4 years (Minor) 7. Ravi Gupta, s/6 Mahesh Kumar Gupta, aged about2 years (Minor) Appellants No.4 to 7 Minors through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Meera Devi, w/p Mahesh Kumar Gupta, all residents of village Khadgaon, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (ChUattisgarh). Versus 1. Balldshan @ Balkishun s/o Kishore Lohar, aged abouf; 25 years, Occupation Di-iver R/o village Tapkara, Distt. Jashpurnagar, M/ s. Balaji Travel's through Prop. Vijay Kumar 2. Vijay Kumar s/o late Bhuneshwar Prasad Gupta, Occypation - Owner; village Tapkara, Distt. Jashpumagar (C.G). 3. Tbe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). , , At>PEAI. UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT T- <: M.A.82/2005 Appearance_: Shri Amit Sharma, couhsel for the appellarits. ORALORDER (30.01.20091 The following brder ofthe Cdurt was passed by SUNILXUMLARSINi^.jJ. Heard on M.(C.)P.No.97/2005, which is anapplication for coiidonation of delay in filing the appeal. Office report shows that the appeal is barred by limitation of two days.' ,. ,- : ' , : ; - On due Gonsideration of the submissions made by leamed counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the appellants have sT-ifficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, M.C.P.No.97/2005 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Shri Sharma is also heard on admission. The appellants/clailliants have filed this appeal for enhancement against the award dated 13.9.2004 passed in Claiin Case No.22/2004 by theIVAddl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh on 13.9.2004. The deceased, RameShwar Prasad Gupta died in -the taotor accident on 10.4.2003 whenhewasdashedby the offendirig vehicle Le. Bus bearing Regn.No.C.G.14-ZA/0131. The appellants/claimants claimed a sum. ofRS.33,70,000/- on accoynt of death 6f the deceased in the inotor acciderit. They pleaded that the deceased was running a Dhaba and was eaming Rs.l5,OOQ/- per morith. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but no documentary evidehce t6 M.A.82/2005 this effect was produced by them. The sori 6f deceased nainely Mahesh Kumar Gi-ipta iri his evidence deposed that fhe deceasedi was earning Rs.300/- per day. But such evidence was not reliedj on by the Tribunal for the incoine ofthe deceased and the Tribunal assed the kicome of the deceased on the basis df notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annyirl prescribed in tUe seeond schedule prepared u/s 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act and holding that the deceased was 52 years ofage and the claimants are sons, wife ofa spn arid children of fheson, it applied the aiultiplier of 11 to such annual incoine of the deceased arid tfae ambunt of coinpehsatron was worked out to Rs.1,65,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a further surft of Rs.7000/- under other heads and a total amount of Rs.l,72,OOQ/- was awarded as comperisation to the appellants/cla.unants on account ofdeath bfdeceased m the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest thereon@ 6% per annum from the date 6f filing of the claim petition till its realization. , Leamed counsel for the appellants argued that the notional income of Rs.l5,QOO/- prescribed in the year 1994 should be treated as Rs.30,000/- m the year 2003 looking to the rise in prices of essential commodities. He argued that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deeeased as Rs.30,000/ - and then the collipensation should have been worked ouf. We have heard leamed cbunsel for the appellant at length 'and have atso peli.ised the records of the Miscellaneous Appeal. E,ven if we accept the arguments advanced ty ^learhed eounsel fbr the appellant and take the income ofthe deceasied as Rs.30,000/- per annum; after deducting % froin the aferesaid annual incoine, the dependency of the appellants would be worked ^.. /A.-lp/ M.A.82/2005 out to Rs.15,000/- only which is equivalenf to what has been assessed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculation bf the coinpensation in this matter. In fact, the Tribunal has not deducted aily ainount from the annual income of the deceased and has calculated the coinpensation by applying the multiplier of 11 to the uicome assessed by it which was Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, even if the calculations are made taking into account that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per annum, the final dut-come will not be changed and the amount of compensation after deducting % of the income 6f Rs.30,000/- will cbme as the same which has been calculated by the Tribunal No other ground is raised before us. f Por the reasons stated herein above, we d6 not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal. The appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P.Sharma ,-Judge i