^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appeliants (Claimants) Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 643 of 2007 1 Gosain Ram Gond Aged about 40 years, S/o Ratna 2 Shashi Gond Aged 09 years 3 Lakheram Gond Aged about 07 years Both minors through their Guardian D/o Gosain Ram Gond S/o Ratna All are resides at Village - Memradhih PS Pithora, Distt Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1 Baraturam @ Ramlal S/o Shri Sukhadas Aged 30 years, R/o Village - Khamhariya Thana - Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG) 2 M/s Nandlal Jaswani Makdum Makers, Budhawari Bazar Bilaspur at present resides at Maha Satti ward, Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Baloda Bazar, Through Divislonal Office, Jail Road, Madina Building Raipur (CG). Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: ShriJ.N. Nande, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for respondents No.1&2 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (14tn September, 2009) The followihg -order of the Court was passed by Rajeey^upta, CJ. ^ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement, of the compensation awarded by the SecondAdditional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No.75/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Kaushalya Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 05.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition tillthe date of actual payment. 7) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation df Rs.2,32,000/- only. u 8) The claiman^s themselves pleaded that deceased Kaushalya Bai used to earn Rs.100/- per day as Labour. The Tribunal 1'.., ^? ^* accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, assessed her jncome at Rs.2,500/- per month considering that she would be getting work only for 25 days in a month. 9) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity jn the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- per month. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Kaushalya Bai was shown to be 55 years of age in her postmortem report. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensatjon either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed summarily. — subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 'v '--».