@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellants Owner & Driver M.A.(ClNo. 408 of 2008 1. Dhaniram Patet, S/o. Indal Prasad Pate, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Gadgaon, Post Chanat, Police Station Basna, Tahsii Basna DJstriet Mahasamund (CG) fOwnerofthe offendlfnQ vehfcle) 2. Padamlochan Patel, S/o. Dhanimm Patel, Aged about 32 yeare, R/o Village Gudgaon. Police Station Basna, Tahsil Basna District Mahasamund (CG) fOwnerofthe affendinavehfclel Versus Respondent Claimants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Smt. Sushila Gond, Wdfo. Basant Singh Gond, Aged about32 years. Shraddha Kumari, D/o Late Basant Singh Gond, Aged about 18 years, Chandrahas Gond, S/o Late Basant Singh Gond, Aged about 13yeare, Dayaram Gond, S/o Late Basant Singh Gond, Aged about 10 years, Respondent No.3 & 4 are minors, through their natural guardian/mother namely Smt. Sushila Gond, Wd/o Late Basant Singh Gond. Smt. Durgawati Qond, W/o Sundar Singh Gond, Aged about 55 years, Sunder Singh, S/o Late Goverdhan, Aged about 58 years, All above residente of Barekel, Police Station & Tahsil Basna, Djstrict Mahasamund (CG) I.C.I.C.I Lombard, Generaj Insurance Company Limited, Lal Ganga Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) (ResDon(Sent/noR»awaHcant) Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Manoj V. Paranjpe, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.03.2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellants i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle are aggrieved by an award dated 11.01.2008 whereby in a death case (Claims case No.65/2007), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (henceforth the Tribunal) has awarded compentation of Rs.2,92,000/-. 3 . Two fold submissions were made by Shri Manoj V. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, placing reliance on Tifre DfvisionafCon^'ollei', K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadev Stie^ and aiwttiw, 2003 AIR SCW 3797, it was argued that compensation to be awarded is to be just and reasonable and cannot be a source for windfall. It was urged that the Tribunal has, without any basis, awarded a very high compensation of Rs.2,92,000/-. Lastly, it was urged that in the absence of any evidence as to the daily earnings of the deeeased, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of dependency on ttie basls of the notional annual income of Rs.15,000/- and not on the baste of Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the tearned counsel forthe appellants. I am ofthe considered opinion thatthere is no merit in this appeal. The widow of the deceased had cteposed that the deceased was Mistry and used to earn a sum ranging between Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per day. No evidence was led by the appellante to rebut the same. Oespite the evidence of widow, ttie Tribunal has taken the mbnthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per morrth. The Tribunal has, perhaps taken into consideratlon the age of th® widow, minor children anct the parents and has applied lesser multiplier 12 instead of multiplier 17 which js applicable to age 35 under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It js to be noticed that the w. daimants were the wldow, three mlnor children and parents of the deceased. If the deceased was required to support such a family, it could safely be presumed that as a labourer the deceased would be earning at least Rs.3000/- per month. Placing reliance on ShivKumar ^St^_ anof others v. Maleshram and two others, 2006 L.T. (CG) 96 wherein it was observed by this Court in paragraph 4 that "a man having a famiiy consisting of mother, wife, young children having a shelter over his head with fcwo square meals and some provisions for rest of the life could not have lived without earning Rs.100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per month, 1 am of the considered opinion ttiat the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. In this vjew of the matter, in my considered opinton, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is Just and reasonable compensatlon and calls for no interference. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismis^d at the stege of admission. Consequently, I.A.No.1 for grant of stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge