HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT DgVjSION BENCH Coram : HON5BLE SHRi RAJEEV ©UPTA,CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 37S of 2006 APPELLANTS (CLAiMANTS) ^'"s 1 Mahendra Kumar, age 17 yrs, VV/o Shri Jeet Ram (Minor) Through Jeet Ram S/o Jaitram Mehar, adopted son of the deceased. 2 Bahura Bai, age 70 yrs, W/o Late Jaitram Mehar, Both are R/o Viilage - Darra, P.S. & Tahsli Kasdoi, Distt. Ralpur Versus 1 Dinesh Kumar, age 29 yrs, S/o Late Mandu Ram Sahu, R/o Semariya, Kosamsara, P.S. & Tahsil Kasdoi, Distt. Ralpur (C.G.) (Driver of Jeep No. M.P. 23/T/0183) 3 The New India insurance Com. Ltd. Branch Office at Civii Line Garden Chowk, Baiodabazar, distt. Ralpur (C.G.) (ins. Com. of Jeep No. M.P. 23/T/0183) 4 Laiiu Ram Sahu, s/o Late Mandu Ram Sahu, R/o Semariy, Kosamsara, P.S. & Tahsii Kasdol Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) (Owner of Jeep No. M.P. 23/T/0183) 5 Faghu Lal, age 44 yrs, S/o Kariya, R/o Deori, P.0. Kharod, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Distt. Bllaspur (CG) OF MISC.. APPEAL SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLESACT i<S V; ^ Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, iearned counsei for the appeiiants. None for respondents No.1, 4 & 5 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (24th July, The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: The appeiiants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Addltionai Motor Accldents Ciaims Tribunai, Baiodabazar, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 30.11:2005, passed in Claim Case No.02/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the appetiants/ ciaimants, the unfortunate mother and seif-ciaimed adopted son of deceased Tirith Bai, by filing a ciaim petltion under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for her death in the motor acddent on 31.03.2002, the Trsbuna! awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1,27,500/- as compensation to claimant No.2 Bahura Bai, the mother of the deceased along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the cJaim petition till the date of actua! payment. The Tribuna! further found that clalmant No.1 Mahendra Kumar, who claimed himseif to be adopted son of the deceased was not entitled to get any compensation as the fact of his adoption by the deceased was not estabiished. 3) Shri J.A. Lohani, iearned counsei for the appeliants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation to appellant No.1 Mahendra Kumar who was ^ <; adopted son of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,27.500/- only to appeilant No.2 Bahura Bai, the mother of the dece-asod. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limlted, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite iiberai in awarding substantlal amount of Rs.1,27,500/- as compensation to appellant No.2 Bahura Bai, who was aged about 70 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunat has rightiy denied the compensation to appeiiant No.1 Mahendra Kumar as the fact of his adoption by the deceased could not established by the claimants. 5) Shri J.A. Lohani, iearned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the claimants could not adduce any documentary evidence before the Tribunai to establish the fact of adoption of appellant No.1 Mahendra Kumar by deceased Tirith Bai. 6) In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunai that appeiEant/ ciaimant No.1 Mahendra Kumar who claimed himseif to be the adopted son of the deceased was not entitied to get any compensation for the death of deceased Tirith Bai. 7) The compensation of Rs.1 ,27,500/- awarded by the Tribunai by selecting the multipiier of 17 aiso appears to be on the higher side as appeilant/ claimant No.2 Bahura Bai was aged about 70 years on the date of the accsdent and the Second Scheduie under ^ Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of 5 for the age group between 65 years to 70 years. 8) As the income of the deceased pteaded by the claimants couid not be established by them by ieading cogent and rellable evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess her income on the basis of the notional income. The deduction of 50% of the jncome of the deceased by the Tribunai cannot be found fauEt wlth as there were on!y two members in the famliy dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased herself and her mother appeilant No.2 Bahura Bai. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appeliants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. -—- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge nimmi