l**^ '^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPBLLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDBNTS NON-CLAIMANTS M.A. fa No. 503/2009 1. Niranjan Rai, S/o Siu-en Rai, aged about 45 years, R/o P.V. - 3, Pakhanjur, Thana Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker (CG) Versus 1. Dipankar Kundu, S/o C.N. Kundu, aged about 37 yeara, occupation vehicle owner, R/o village Pakhanjiir, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Kanker (CG) 2. The Ne<v India Insurance Company Limited, near Jhankar TaBdes, Jaipur Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRBSBNT :-Shn Aditya Khare, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Soiirabh Sharma, Adv. for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (31-3-2010) PerN.K. 1. This is clamiant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in fhe award dated 5-2-2008 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker m Claim Case No. 58/2007 wherelay and whCTeunder an axnount of Rs. 1,65,000/- has been awarded in favoin* offhe claimant as compensation for fhe deafh ofdeceased Ku. Chanchla Rai who as per the daunant was aged about 15 years at fhe time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are fhat on 16-5-2006 at about 4.30 p.m. deceased Ku. Chanchla along wifh ofher deceased persons was retuming after attendii^ a marriage of her relation by a Tempo Trax Gama vehicle bearing re&sti^ation no. CG/04/H 3039 and died on a nexalite bomb b]ast near village Sakansur Distt. Garhchirauli. The father of deceased Ku. Chanchla Rai filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (brieffy the Act^ claiming Rs. ^ 3,00,000/- as compensation for fhe death of the deceased against the respondents. 3. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company responsible for payment of compensation, assessed income of fhe d^;eased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, after deductir^ l/3rd towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, assessed toss of dependency 10,000/- per annum, applied multiplier of 15 looking to the age offhe claimant as 45 years, and awarded Rs. l,50,000/- on account of loss of dependency. Leamed Tribunal furfher awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards faneral expenses and thus awai^ed Rs. 1,65,000/- as total compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from fh^ date of appUcation till itsrecoveiy. 4. Shri Khare, leamed coiinsel for the appellant would submit that leamed Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation inasmuch as the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 15,000/- per amium is shockingfy on lower side. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sharma, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insiirance Company supported the award and submitted that in the facts and dTcumstances of the case, leamed Tribunal has rightly passed the award. The amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same deserves to be upheld. 6. Indisputably, as per pleadiag ofthe claimant,the incpme of the deceased Ku. Chanchla Rai was Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The same has been allowed by the Tribimal and after taking into consideration fhe tncome ofdeceased as Rs. 15,000/- per amium, the award has been passed. A close scrutiny of fhe award woiild also reveal the leamed Tribunal has deducted l/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 15. As per IInd Schediile appended to Section 173-A of fhe Act, if fhe victfm is up to 15 years of age, appropriate multiplier woiild be 15, thus the Tribunal has passed the award strictfy in tenns of IInd Schedule appendedto Section 173-A offhe Act. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. In view of above, I do not find any illegalily in fhe award passed by fhe Tribimal warranting interference of this Court. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge