jr<M tT OF CHHATTISGAi I'BLE S IL M.A,.No,331of_2008 . 1. Khemin Bai, widow of Ashwani Kumar Sahu, aged about 25 years. 2. Ku. Priya, D/o Late Ashwani Kumar iahu, aged about 6 years. 3. Pritesh Kumar. S/o Late Ashwani Kumar Sahu, aged about 3 years. Appellant No. 2 & 3 through their mother Smt Sai R/o C/o Surendra Gondpsra Bilaspur Tah. SilasDur(C.G.1 minor Khemin Verma, ; Distt. Murali Sahu, S/o Shri Ram Sahu, R/'o Village Bartuli, Post Pipariya Dlstt. Kawardha, (C.G.) [Vehicie owner, Vehlcie No. CG 09A'2132] The OrieRtal insurance Co. Ltd. Throug'n : Manager Zons Officer, Infront of High Court, Bilaspur Distt. ^ilaspur (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act.1988 Present: Shri indrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the aDpellants. [17th 'he foilowing order of the Court was passed by N. @ Shri Indrasen Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 2. The Appeitants / claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident 1, (F.T.C.) Bilaspur, (t'or short 'the Tribunal') vide Claims Tribunal award'dated 07-10-2006, oassed in Claim Case No. 65/2006. 3. The claimants pleading that deceased - Ashwani Kumar used to earn Rs.2,400/- per month as Motor-Mechanic, claimed Sion of Rs.3,56,828/- by fiiing a claim petition under 1S3-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in ths motor aecident when on 28-08-2004 his X motorcycte bearing Registration No. C.G. 09/2132 road resulting in muitiple serious injuries to Ashwani Kurnar who succumbed to those injuries in the hospital on 29-08-2004. 4. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle contested the ciaim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that deceased - Ashwani Kumar himself was responsible for the accident. 5. The Tribunal on the evidence of AW1 - Khemin Bai examined by the claimants and that of NAW1- Anil Sao examined by the insurer, held that deceased - Ashwani Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained bv him in the motor accident on 28-08-2004 and the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were jointiy and severally liable to pay compensatlon to the claimants. The Tribunai accepted the evidence led by the claimants about the income ot' the deceased and assessed his income at \- N Rs.2,400./- per month. By deducting 1/31'd0f the said amount towards his persona! expenses, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,600/- per month and Rs.19,200/- per annum. }y multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.19,200/- with the multiptier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,45,600/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.19,500/- under other heads. the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,65,100/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Ashwani Kumar in the motor accident on 28-08-2004. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,65,100/- from the date of filing of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Indrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the appeiiants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow amount of Rs.3,65,100/- only as compensation to the claimants for the death of As'nwani Kumar. 8. The claimants themselves claimed compensation of Rs.3,56,828/-, whereas the Tribunai has awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,100/'- as compensation which is more than the compensation claimed by the claimants. 9. The claimants pleaded that the deceased used to earn Rs.2,400/- per month as Motor-Mechanic. The Tribunal accepted the income pleaded by the claimants and assessed the income of deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month. The dependency of the claimants also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunat by dsduding only 1/3 of the income of the dsceased towards hls ^ fl 1 ^~ "I i <s!i^3<-gs^?> SubOU personal expenses. The multipiier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is the highest multlpiier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act under which the ciaim petition was fiied bv the ciaimants. 10. Thus, the claimants cannot legaily have any grievance elther' on account of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of thi compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In this appeal, v'/e have neither considered nor decided as to whether the insurance Company has been rightiy held liabie by the Tribuna! to pay compensation to the claimants, which issue shail be decided in M.A.C. No. 25/2007, filed by the Insurance Company against the award. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appea! fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge x \. !..;-! ^