^^s ^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR1 SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS M.A. JC) No. 143 OF 2009 1. RESPONDENTS P.K. Mishra, aged about 60 years, S/o Prahalad Mishra 2. Ajay Kumar Mishra, aged 37 years, S/o P.K. Mishra (Both above R/o" H Pocket, 18B, Maroda Bhii'aj, Disfrict Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Vinay Mahato, S/o Ramlat Mahato, R/o chhatterji Gali, Madhusudan Chatterjee House, sarkanda. Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver of Offending Vehicle TruckNo.MP/19/D/1387) 2. Smt. Jharana Mukherjee, W/o P.K. Mukherje, R/o N.E. Rly. Colony, QR. No.126014 (Owner of Offending Vehicle Truck No.MP/19/0/1387) P.S. Torwa, Djstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Thhaker chamber, Opp. Project Automobiles, Power House, Bhilai Durg, DSstrict Durg Insurance Company of Offending VehideNo.MP/19/D/1387 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Anurag Jha, iearned counsel for the appeflants. ORDER (28m February, 2009) m ^/^ ?i*.~^. '3J ^ ^-^ '© The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in frting the appeal. 3. I.A. No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay In flling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 26.06.2008, passed in Claim Case No.93/2007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.8,46,000/- claimed by the daimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of Smt Parul Mishra, wife of claimant No.1 P.K. Mishra and mother of claimant No.2 Ajay Kumar Mishra, for her death in the motor acddent on 11.11 .2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,04,670/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. y^^^i 7. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appeKants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 2,04,670/- oniy. 8. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Smt Parul Mishra used to earn Rs.3000 - 4000 per month by stitching and knitting, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9. On due consideration of the submjssions of learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any inflrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.3,600/- per annum. 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 her personai expenses. 11. The multipiier of 8 selected by the Tribunal js rather on the higher side as appellant No.l/claimant No.1 ~ P.K.Mishra, husband of deceased Smt. Parul Mishra admittedly was aged 60 years on the date of filing of the claim petjtion and the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the multiplier of 5 for the age group between 60 - 65 years. 12. We, therefore, 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 multipljer selected. 13. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge »»n^