HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ,1 CORAM: APPELLANT HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE SHRSR.L. JHANWAR. J J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 866/2010 Phool Singh Verma, S/o Radhe!al Verma, Aged about 46 years, R/o F.C.I. Gate Ksnpa Basti, Opposite Ekta School Mowa Raipur, District, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 4. Versus Sheshnath Singh Sheshnarayan S/o Jokhan Singh Rajput, R/o Dih Asharkhabad,thana Sarpataha, District jauunpur (U.P.) Present Address- P.D. Rice Industry, Near Samrat Talkies, Station Road Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Driver of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/J.A./5511) P.D. Rice Industry Near Samrat Taikies, Station Road Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Owner of Vehicie Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/J.A./5511) N.ational Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Nationai Insurance Company Limited G.E. Road Raipur C.G. (Insurer of the of Vehicie Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/J.A./5511 )No.285100/31 /08 /6300005327) (vaiidity from 12/02/09to11/02/2010). Chandrashekhar Verma, S/o Phoolsigh Verma, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Dadhi Gidhwa, Thana- Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Present Address R/o Near Ekta School Kanpa, Lodhipara, Tehsil and Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) ,,,.^i £^?:SSi^ '%.>ss' "a s W J" ^ Mise. Appeal (0 No. 866/2010 (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1S88) Appearance: Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate for the appeliant, QRDER (20.08.2010) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. I"" Learned counsel forthe appellant is heard on I.A. No. 01/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the office report, the appeal is barred by 148 days of limitation. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. Appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 136/2009 by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 8.12.2009. The appellant, unfortunate liusband of deceased- Chaiti Bai filed a claim petition u/s 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of 8,80,000/- for her death in the motor accident, which took place on 09.03.2009, when the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle/truck bearing registration No. C.G.04/ J.A.-5511 on account of rash and negligence driving of the said vehicte by its driver. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as labour and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal held the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-. By deducting 50% towards the personat expenses of the deceased, the dependency was wori<ed out to 18,000/-. By applying multiplier of 13 to the said annual dependency, the compensation wa? worked out to 2,34,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 30,000/- under other heads, the total amount of comDensation was worked out to Rs. 2.64.000/-, which the Misc. Appeal (C) No. 866/2010 Tribunal awarded as compensation to the appellant for the death of deceased Chaiti Bai in the Motor Accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. Mr. Tandan, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per annum and the compensation would have been calculated on such annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal on due consideration of evidence of Phool Singh (A.W.1) determined that when the deceased was working as labour, she must be earning Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has considered that the appellant pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 120/- per day but except the oral evidence of the appellant, nothing was there on record to hold such income of the deceased. Looking to the nature of work, which the deceased was doing and the number of days, on which the work would be available to the deceased in a month, we do not find any substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. Looking to the entire tacts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. No order as to cost. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Rahul