>€> 5 •^ ;.,^' OF CJ. & J. Applscant . Smt Sitarao; aged about 54 years, Claimant W/o Late Ramdas, R/o Manchadur, Thana Charma, Distt Kanker 1. Jltendra Prasad Dubey aged about Driver 34 years, S/o Balaprasad Dubey, R/o Manchadur, Thana and Tahsil Distt Uttar Baster, Charma, Kanker Owner 2. Devendra Giri Goswami, S/o Late BJ Goswami, R/o Vlkas Nagar, Kondagaon, Thana and Tahsii Kondagaon, Disti Baster 3 Roya! Sunderam Aliiance Insurance Company Llmlted, 203, Commercial Bhawan, Second Fioor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur 173 OF THE Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsei for the appeliant. ?th (17mFebruary,2011) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by CJ. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsei for the appeilant is heard on l.A.No.01/2011, an appiication for condonation of the deiay in fliing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submisslons of iearned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the appilcation, we are satisfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeai. 3) i.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the deiay in flllng the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counse! for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) The appeilant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.10.2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.73/2009. 6) As against the compensatlon of Rs.5,45.000/- ciaimed by the appeilant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Krishna Kumar, by filing a cialm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.07.2009, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,45,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiJing of the ciaim petition tlli the date of actua! payment. 7) Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the iower multiplier of 6; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,4-5,000/-only. 8) The claimant cannot have any iegitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunalat ^s '^l^v ^ Rs.150/- per day and Rs.3,750/- per month as the claimant herseif pleaded and proved that her son Krishna Kumar used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason and he was getting work for 25 days In a month. In this state of pieading and evidence, we do not find any infirmity In the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal ' at Rs.3,750/- per month and Rs.45,0007- per annum 9) As there were only two persons dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himseif and her mother Smt. Sltarao vvho is the soie claimant in the case, the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased to'wards his personal expenses cannot be found fauit vvith. 10) The selection of muitiplier of 6 by the Tribunal also does not suffer from any jnfirmity as the ciaimant in her cross- examination couid not dispute that s'ne was between 60-65 years of age. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancemenf ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 12) The appea! fiied by the appeiiant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. L Sd/- ^ R.N. Chandrakar i Judge .Sd/- ChiefJustice njmmi