HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. •^ Misc. Appeal (C) No.1515 of 2008 Appellants Respondents ^^L 1 Smt h^ushilya Bai, Wd/o late Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik, aged about 23 years 2 Ku Shaniprabha, D/o Late Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik, aged about 8 months 3 Rambali, s/o late Ramadhar Kaushik, aged about 60 years 4 Smt Chhedin Bai, W/o Rambali Kaushik, aged about 57 years No.2 minor, through natural guardian mother Smt Kaushilya Bai, Wd/o Late Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik aged about 23 years All R/o Dagori, PS Bilha, Tahsil - Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS 1 Jogendra Singh, s/o Darshan Singh Balmiki, r/o Supela, Contractor Colony (Maruti Show Room Opposite Ganpati Motors) Bhilai, PS Supela, District Durg (Driver of vehicte Tmck/Tanker No.CG- 07/C-2694) 2 Shri Julasar Kumar Ramtek, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Bhilai - 3 District Durg (Registered Owner of vehicle Truck/Tanker No.CG-07/C-2694) 3 United tndia Insurance Company Limited, through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rajendra Nagar i'-''s's&^ %.. ^-'^ v^ Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER :th (15mJuly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.68/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,50,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his death in the motor accident on ^.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India tnsurance Company Limited, the ^ insurer of the offending vehicle truck/tanker bearing registration No.CG-07 C/^94 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.18,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the dateof actual payment. 5) Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Vijay Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellants vehementty argued that the Tribunal has erred In not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income of Rs.3,000/- per month only; and awarding low compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- only. 6) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United tndia Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck/tanker, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. ^ 7) True the claimants pleaded that deceased Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as an Electrician, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any inrirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,(X)0/- per annum. 8) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the incomeof the deceased towards his personal expenses. 9) The multiplier of 1 8 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes the multiptier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. 10) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. a3/ padma 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge