^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,JJ. M.A.(C)No.616of2010 ADDellants Claimants ^... Respondents (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) (Owner) (Insurer) 1. Smt. Triveni Mishra, w/o. late Roshan Prasad Mishra, aged about 32 years. 2. Lalit Mishra, s/o. late Roshan Prasad Mishra, agedabout 1 1/2years. 3. Krishna Prasad Mishra, s/o. Narayan Prasad Mishra, aged about 56 years. Appellant No. 2 is minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Triveni Mishra, w/o. late Roshan Prasad Mishra, all r/o. Harrapadav, Keshkal, P.S. & Tahsil Keshkal, Distt. Bastar(CG). Versus 1. Sheetal s/o. Mehttar Yadav, aged about 40 years, r/o. Santoshi Nagar, behind Durga Mandir, Tikarapara, Raipur, P.S. Tikarapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2 Director, M/s. Tirupati Cement Carriers, C/o. A.T. Associated Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 4. Shri Sukalu Ram Markam, S/o. Shri Mansingh, r/o. Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (CG). 5. Manager, Reliance, General Insurance Company Limited, 570 Rectifire House- 2, Naigas Cross Road, Vadala (West) Mumbai, through Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 412-413, Ravi Bhawan Complex, Ringroad, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG). ^ •i-^?%^ Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1988 Present : Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 5. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counselfor respondent No.5. ORDER (Passedon 14th September, 2010) Per T.P.Sharma, J. By this appeal, the appellants/claimants have challenged legality and propriety ofthe award dated 18-1-2010 passed by learned Additional Motor Accjdent Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 16 of 2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,42,073/- ciaimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate wife, minor and father of deceased Roshan Prasad Mishra, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20-1-2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,37,000/- as compensation along With interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) As per the case of the appellant, when the appellant was driving TATA 907 bearing No. CG 17-ZD/0230 owned by respondent No.4 and insured with respondent No.5, the respondent No.1 while driving the vehicle bearing No. CG 04/J/64737 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondentNo.3, ina rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle of the deceased and due to that the deceased died. As per claim petition, the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- to Rs. 6000/- per month :^s'^i'^^:l.:;;'?i'.:^l.:^- ^s^^B^^w and his age was 35 yearsatthetrme bfincident arid b wa& elaimed as compensation 6n account of hisl dea^^ acciGlent. By filing wrjttert statemtent, respondentslNo. 1 arid 2 have j- '':1';'';':\.' : ''•: :IITI<''" denied the ^llegations made in the claim petition. Responcleht No.3 has also filed written statement in which he has denied the accident and claim SL ! oftheappellan hasawarcIedthecompensationofRs.3,37,000/-totheappell9ntsagainst j 4hecQmpensationofRs.8,42,073/-. s |j?| 4) VVe have heard learried counsel for impugned and record of the Claims Tribunal. 5) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that while awarding the compensation, fhe Tribunal has not rightlyconsideredthe •;\ ^' , .. •-:.;' ," •/1 " : ' l,' .1 , 1- • • '^ •. •., • . " -• ! '1 ' . • " . ' notional jncome of thecleceased and theTrjbunal hasfurthercommitted an ^rror by applying multjplier of 13 despjte the d^ about35years,^herefore,hjghermultipliershouldhavebeenapplied. 6) Shri Sourabh Sharma,leamed counsel forlrespondent No.5 - Reliance Geheral Insurance Company Ltd., on the other hand supported /^'••.''..'.''-..-••'.r''' .••:''•• .:;'-.'-'/. ••'.,•• '•lv'-' the award and contended that the cbmpensatibn of Rs.3,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circymstance& ofthe presentcase, ! 7) In the present case, the appellants/claimants have examined appeilantNo.3 Krishna Prgsad whoha&deposedthatin y^seitherRs.50(X)/-orR?.6000/-permpnth.HJscertificateisExP/1 issued by MokatiRoad Lines in which it has been mentio deceased workingas Munshi^^^^w^ Rs.6000/- on the basis of commission. As per document, the age of the :"^; ^•y^ deceased was 35 years. By placing reliance in the matter of Smt. Manjil Arora and others Vs. Rohni Prasad and others (2009) (1) CGLJ 479, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and has discussed the income of the deceased in para 12 and arrived at a finding that the appellants have not proved the income of the deceased between Rs.5000/ to Rs.6000/- per month and have not examined the person who has issued the certificate and in absence of any such document or evidence, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the notional income of the deceased of Rs. 3000/- permonth. Thus, in the light of Smt. Manjil Arora (supra), the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in applying multiplier of 13 and after assessingthe income and applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunat has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,37,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 8) On close scrutiny of the evidence of single witness, we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju