^ l^sra^-) Ciaimants a-Etf~t&!?! ^.fcJI oni MEEV GUPTA, CJ. JNIL KUMAR SINHA, 3 4 Smt Ratna Bai Wd/o Late Heeralal Yadav, Aged about 23 years Raju (Minor) S/o Late Heeraial Yadav, aged about 10 months, Through - Legal Guardian (Mother) Smt. Ratna Bai Soth R/o Maharajpur, PS Sariya, Tehsil - Sarangarh, Dist: Raigarh (CG) Nakched Ram Yadav S/o Late Nanhu Ram Yadav Aged about 45 ysars Occupation - Agriculturist Smt. Champa Bai W/o Nakched Ram Yadav, Aged about 43 years, Occupation - House wife, r/o Mironi, PO Mahava, Tehsii - Dabra, Distt Janjgir Champa (CG) Non-spplicant; ^^^^1 Arman Khan S/o Multan Khan aged about 21 years, Occupation - Driver, R/'o Chandrapur, Te'nsi! - Dabra, Dist Jajgir Champa (CG) Shashlkant Dewan.qan r/o R Dewan.gan, Aged about 22 years, Occupation Service, R/o Chandrapur, Tehsi! Dabra, Distt Janjgir Champa (CG) !ndla Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, In front of Gopi Talkles, Raigam - (CG) >'?a%pnf • ?^hri \/ln^Q^ kri Emp.r p^nripv r:riun<s^l fr^r fhpi- ^r'inpli??] : d'C^Si EL . s«?£tl E V tl E^;i?t, r'\.UI EiCEl 1 Ciii'ui^yj Irf'U^i E ttS^i if->! i.1 iGr djh/|^C;HCet i^^?> ;th ,n The foilo'wing order of the Court was passed by WG'i Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel . for lants is heard on M.C.P.No.396/2007, a petition condonation of a'elay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counse! for the appellants and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause forthe deiay in filing the appeal. 3} M.C.P. No.396/2007, therefore, is allowed and the deiay of 18 days.in fiiing the appeal is herebycondoned. 4) Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional K4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.10.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No.34/2006. 6) As against the cQmpensation of Rs.74,28,000/- ciaimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Heeralal Yadav, by filing a claim petition for his death in the motor accident on 27.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,31,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition til! the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsei for the appellants yehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in awarding jow compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Heeralal Yadav used to earn Rs.500/- per day by running a hotel, but the evidence !ed in that behaif could not establish the income ofthe deceased to the extent of Rs.500/- per day. 9) From para 11 of the impugned award, we gather that the iicence (Ex.P/6) produced before the Tribunal indicated that the deceased was running a petty Tea Shop in his village, where sweets and snacks v/ere also sold. in this state of evidence, we do not find any inflrmlty in the assessment of the income of the deceased.by t.he Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. 10) The claimants' dependency a!so has been rightiy assessed by the Tribunal by deducting ths usual 1/3 of the incorne of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The sslection of multipiier of 18 by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as 18 is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation eithsr on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the muitipiier selected. ^.^•^^t!^, /5^"\ ^ wy Subbt 13} The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be >missed 3nd is hereby dismissed Sd/- ! ChiefJustice Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge