H8GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR D8VISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRt RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS N.K.AGARWAL, J. ADpeSlants (Ctaimants) Mlsc. Appeal (C) No. 650 of 2007 1 Ku.Tanuja Choudhari, Aged about 08 years 2 Ku. Jyoti Choudhari, Aged about 06 years 3 Lokesh Choudhari, Aged about 05 years, Ail are children of Late Vrindavan Choudhari 4 Smt Devmati Choudhari Aged about 50 years, w/o Late Kursho Alias Dhoom Choudhari Lega! guardian ofAppellant No.1 to 3 Ail are Residents ofVillage Bijatipali, PS Saraipali Distt Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1 Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Bhojraj Patel, Aged about 39 year?, R/o Viliage - Tilaipali Post Kendua Tahsil - Saraipaii Distt Mahasamund (CG) 2 The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through Divisional Office, Jail Road, Madina Building Raipur (CG). Appesl under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Respondents Non-claimants Present: r Shrj J.N. Nande, counsel forthe appellants. Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No.1. Shl-i Raj Awasthi, counsei for respondent No.2. \ ORDER ?th (16m September, 2QQ9) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showjng suffjcient cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is aliowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.05.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No.57/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate children and mother of deceased Vrindavan Choudhari, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.12.2005, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.4,69,000/- a,s compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from th6 date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. y '^. ^ ^t.'.^^ ^._^ ."sy^ r^ 7) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,69,000/- only. 8) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Vrindavan Choudhari used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from his Kirana Shop in addition to the income of Rs.1,00,000/- from agriculture. From para 13 of the impugned award we gather that no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunai to establish that deceased Vrindavan Choudhary was running any Kirana Shop at all. 9) tn this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum by the Tribunal on its own estimate. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The daimants cannot have any grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as this is the highest multiptier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the MotorVehiclesAct.. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' \ dependency by the Tribunai or the muitiplier selected. ^ lr^^ '--"^, ^ i ^f./ l^- 13) The appeal filed by the appeliants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. __ subbu Sd7- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ ;\