/..^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 98 of 2007 Appellant Smt Rajkumari, Widow of Late Shri Claimant Maniram Sahu, aged about 50 years, resident of Village karhibhadar, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) VERSUS Respondents 1. Smt Anuradha Wife of Shri Bhupendra Sahu, aged'about 22 years, resident of village Barna, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) 2. United Insurance Company Limited, through : the Branch Manager/ Branch Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG), District Rajnandgaon (CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri PP Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (17th June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanVclaimant Smt. Rajkumari, widow of deceased Maniram Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ^s^ ./ l^1,. ^ ^^"'^ @ Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 160/2005. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-claimed by the appellanVclaimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Maniram Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 03.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,17,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3) Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,17,500/-only. 4) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that the claim petition filed by the appellanV claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act itself was not maintainable as the appellant's husband, deceased Maniram Sahu himself was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. 5) As the insurer of the motorcycle has neither filed any appeal against the impugned award nor cross-objections in this appeal, we are not required to examine the maintainability of the claim petition filed by the appellanV claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor VehiclesAct. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. r '^ /( ti \,',:;-,;,'1%, I '^. 1-',.te^-<^ .^ "J/ •-^syy 7) Though the claimant pleaded that her husband Maniram Sahu used to earn Rs.10,500/- per month as Teacher, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum as the claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8) On due consideration of the entire scheme of compensation on the structured formula under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.40,000/- per annum. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting 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 there were only two members in family dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself and his wife, sole claimant Smt. Rajkumari. 10) The multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the deceased Maniram Sahu was shown to be 58 years of age in his postmortem report and the multiplier of 8 only has been prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for the age group between 55-60 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. t.^^ J ^?. ^ \-^ ..^b> ) 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge