HIGH GOURTOFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJBEVGUrTA, CJ. <. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants MA.(CtNo.78of201<» 1 Smf. Sohagabhi, Widcw of Shuamsingh Patel, aged about SO yeare. 2 Jitendra Kumar, son of Shuamsingh Patel, agedabout25years. 3 Godavari Bai, Daughter of Shyamsingh Patel, ^ed about 30 years. All are resident of village Mundera Police StaUon and Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Respondents/ 1 Non-Applicants Sukhrurara, son of Vijayram Nisadh, aged about 45 years, i^ktent of village Mahmara Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil and Distriet Durg, CG (Driver). Smt. Sukhbnariya Bai, widow of Kashi Ram Chakardhari, aged abput 75 yeare, Khash Mukhfayar Kanhajya Chatardhari, son of late Shri Kasht Rairn Chakardhari, Marfat Jagdish Chakardhari, son of Kashi Ram Chakardhari, Ganjlpara, Tahsil andDistrictDyrg,CG(Owner). Jagdish Prasad, son of Late Shri Kashiram Chakardhari, aged about (not mentioned) years, r^ident of Qanjipara, Tahsil and District Durg, CG.(Owner). The Oriental Insurance Conipany Limtted, Address Dlvisionat Offfce, Parmanand luildlng, Dr. Rqenctra ParkGh6wk.PO.Ba. No.54, G.E. Road,Tahsil Durg, District Durg, CG (Insurer). • ^?&?fe6trt^H5^jfr.3iiB^£E IH KS t MiscellaneousaDDealu/S.173oftheMotor VehlclesAcl.lSSS Present: Shri PraveenDhurandar.counselfortheappellants. ORDER sth (25mJanuary,2010) The following order of the Court was pa^ed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Praveen Dhurandar, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admisston. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribynal, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.10.2X)9, passed in Claim Case N0.75/2009. 3) AsagainstthecompensattOnofRs.15,82,61^-ctaimedby the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and majorchitdr«iof deceased Shyamsingh Patel, by flling a claim petltion under Section 166 ofthe Motor VehtelesAct, for his death in the motor accident on 28.12.2007, theTribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.12,54,689/- as compehsation along wlth inter^t @ 6% per annum from the date of fillng of the claim petttion till We date of actualpayment. 4) Shri Praveen Dhurandar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatton of Rs.12,54,689/- only. <. "'-1 :^ ~v 5) Sofarastheassessmentofincomeofthedeceasedbythe Tribunal at Rs.14,007/- isconcemed, the claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance as the Income of the deceased pleaded by the claimants at Rs.14,(X)7/- has been accepted by the Tribunal. 6) The ctaimants'dependency also has beenrightlyassessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual-1/31''1 ofthe income ofthe deceased towards his personat expenses. 7) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that, deceased Shyamsingh Patel was aged about % years and multiplier of 11 isprescribed bythe Apex Court in a recent dictumin the case of Saria Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Qorporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121 for the age group between51 -SSyears. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope fer enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of income of the deceased or the claimants' dependendy by the Tribunal orthe multiplierselected. 9) The appeal ffled by the appellants/clalinants for enhancement- of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ~ Sdf- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sd/- chiefJustice tSSBjB subbu