. : _ 1 . .. ... . . .. ^ H1GHJ)OURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.599 of 2007 Appellants Claimants 1. Smt. Dashoda Bai Sahu, Wd/o Sukaluram, aged about 33 years, 2. Ku. Laxmi Sahu, D/o Late Sukaluram, aged about 14years, 3. Ku. Saraswati Sahu, D/o Late Sukaluram, aged about 12 years, 4. Prem Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Sukaluram Sahu, aged about 10 years, 5. Ku. Rama Sahu, D/o Late Sukaluram Sahu, aged about 08 years, 6. Nageshwar Sahu, S/o Late Sukaturam Sahu, aged about 06 years, No.2 to 6 minors through natural guardian mother Dashoda.Bai Sahu, W/o Late Sukaluram Sahu, All residents of Mahamaya Mandir Road Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) versus 1. Jyotilal Yadav, S/o Budhram Yadav, aged eabout 41 years, R/o Telikot Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Jitendra Singh Thakur, S/o Goverdhan Singh Thakur, aged about 25 years, R/o Chandan Talab Road, Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No.1, Russal Crossing Dr. Barah Road, 1561 NepierTown, Jabalpur Miscellaneous ApDeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Respondents Present: Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. No one appears for other respondentsthough served. ORAL ORDER ith (Passed on this 26"' day of September, 2008) \^ Heard on admission. (2) In this appeal for enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- awardedby the 6th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the tribunal') in Claim Case No. 102/2006 by award dated 02-02-2007 in a case of accidental death of one Sukaluram, aged about 35 years, the sole ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal erred in adopting multiplier of 16 and should have applied multiplier of 17 underthe Second Schedule. (3) A perusal of the impugned award shows that no document was filed by the claimants to substantiate that the age of the deceased was 35 years. Multiplier shown in the Second Schedule applies to award of compensation on structured formula in cases under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hencefori:h 'the Act') and servesonly as guideline in cases under Section 166 of the Act. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the application of multiplier 16 by the tribunal, in the facts and circumstanoes, cannot be faulted with. On a perusal of the impugned award, the compensation awarded by the tribunal appears to bejust and reasonable compensation. No ground for enhancement of compensation is thus made out. (4) The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal