....-.^.tS-^sas:-....-__.—__._^. y sm ^l ^j^A^IT ^B-^gEVi^^^ 1 DIVISiON Smt. Radha years, W/o. Satnami. sai, Aaed about 40 Shri Pilu Ram ial Das, Aged about 1 1 yesrs. iaiak Das, Aged .about 9 years. Agar das, Aged about 7 years. Amarbatin Bai, Aged ab vears. i»ppeilant No. 2 to 5 ail are son of Shri Piii and bein? represented hereby t Mother Smt. Radha Bai. Pilu Ram, S/o Shri Shivbhagat, Aged about 45 years, All R/o Vilfage Chingariya, Tahsil District Raipur(C.G.; 1. Kirti Chauhan, Agsd about 30 ITS years, S/o Shri Somiial Chauhan, R/o Civil Llnes, Baloda Bazar, P.S. Baioda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Ravnish Sjngh Netam, S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh, R/o Nehru Nagar, P.S. Supela, Durg, District ,//^- /^ 'uiy ^.'^?. 3 The New India insurance Companv Limited, Parakh Shawan, Station Raod, Durg, District Dura OR The New indi Snsurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - Madina yr'.-^, f Suiiding, Kachahari Chov/k, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) IOTOR VEHJCLES ACT 19S Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel appeilsnts. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though serve. Shri P. Dutta, learned counse! for respondent ror the ^tfV ^SriiJ. the Court; was oasses Learned counsei for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 624/2006, a petition for condonation of t'ne delay in filing the 'BI. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufncient cause for the delay in filing ths appeai. 3. M.C.P. No. 624/2006, therefore, is allowed and the detav of seven days in filing the appeat is hereby condoned. 4. Shrl.Pawan Kesham'ani, learned counsel for the appellants 's neard on aclmission. 5. The comDensati 'peliants are seeking ennancement of the awarded by the First Additional Motor Aecidents CSaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 06.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.97/2004. ^-y ^'., i9f3f!ii'"aW. iK '^_-..* '^~ "flip".-i •-.a-.os^' \.^ 6. As agalnst the compensation of Rs.21,74,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brothers of jeceased Amar Das Satnami by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.09.2004, when the Minibus bearina reaistration No. C.G.07E-0204 in which he was traveiling met with an accident resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself, the Tribunaf awarded a totalsum of Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of. filing of the c'aim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- awarded by the TribunaE is too iow as deceased Amar Das Satnami was the soie earnlng member in the family and his parents and younger brothers were wholly dependent on hls income. The claimants pleaded that deceased Amar Das Satnami used to earn Rs.2,500/'- per month as an agricuitural iabour. The evidence of AW3 Ramji Dhritlahre was not found reliable by the Tribunai. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased on its own estimate at Rs.1,500/- per month and t.s.18.000./- per annum. 9. On due consideraiion of the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellants and the reasonings given by the Tribunal in paras 13 ana' 1 4 or the award, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribuna! as ^ deceased Amar Das Satnsmi was aged about 18 years only on the date of the aecident, as shown in the post-mortem report. 10. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deductlng only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and after his marriaae his contribution to the parents and brothers would have been reduced substantiaiiv. • 11. The multiplier of 16 seiected by the Tribunal is also on the hiaher side in view of the dictum of the A.oex Court in the case of another. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents ofthe deceased, the muitiplier shou!d never exceea' 1 0. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awardsd by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the muftipiier 13. The appeal, therefore, is iiabie to hereby dismissed summariiy. lected. dismissed and is Sd/- Quef JusUce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge