HiGi‘E C 6R? OF CHHATTISGARH, BELASPUR MA. No.106l2003 Coram: mm hie Mr Justice Sunii Kumaf Sinha & Hvn’hlsg ML Justice R.L. Jhanwar Smt. Parul Baia Pai, Wd/o late Mukund Chandra Pai, aged about 38 years, 1 agns: a nam-n APF£LLHN !© Sujit Kumar Pal, S/o late Mukund Chandra Pal, aged about 19 years Ku. Suchitra Pal, D/o late Mukund Chandra Pal! aged about 14 years 4 Ku. Saraswatl Pal, D/e late Mukund Chandra Pal, aged about 5 years Opp No3 & 4 through Natural Gua dlan and mother Smt Parul Bala Pal All R/o Vrindavan Ambedkar Ward, (0e) 3 1. Shelkh Hanil’, S/o Shaikh Janl, ”!w 4O .years, R/o Hyderabad, Vijaywada, District Krlshna (A-P-l Sheikh Kaleem, S/o Shaikh Kasim Ali, Rio Paritala, PS. Kanohi Kachrala, District Krishna (AP) 3 The New lndia lnsurance Co Ltd through Branch Manager Branch Office — Jagdalpur Jeypore Road Kumharpara Jagdalour (C G l Colony, Jagdalpur Versus RE$PO§¥3m gx) audhlr Sarkar S/o Shrl Bhupatl Sarkar 35 years Rio Vrrndavan Colony, Ambedkar Ward (Nayamunda para), Jagdalpur W5 LLN‘vEGU3 APPgAL UNDER SECTtON 173 OF THE MOTGR VEHECLES ACT Awaaranae Jpa E Mr Qantosh Rharat (‘olmsel forthe appellants lv‘u auunir agarwal Counsel for respondent No 3 None for other respondents. 2 m. No.1a6'fzoa3 am; GRDER (145293010) roiiowmg order of the Court was passed by Sgii‘aéE Kumai’ aim‘na. 3. The appeiiai‘xWCiaimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of me amaum on compens‘mon awarded in Ciaim Case No.G2/2002 by the cabana Addmonai Mom‘r Accident caaims Tribunal, Jagdalpur vlde award dated '25“ of Nevember 2002. T e appeuarnemalmants unfertunate Widow, son and daughters of eceaeee =wumnd enarlula val flled a claim petition under Section 166 o tne View: Vernal Am, manning compensation of Rs 16 37 449i- for hie death in the motor accident, which took place on 1?. .O.99, when his Jeep (Maxi Cab) bearing registration No 25Bw0739 in which, the deoeaeeo web travelling ae an occupant was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration MAP. 16Vi786? on account of rash and egligant driving of the said truck by its driver. The deceased was aged x‘ about 4t) years. w The appeiiantsioiaimants pieaded that the deceased was earning 3.606% per month by running his jeep (Maxi Cab) as a Taxi and by setting oid oiothes in the weekly markets of the area. Though such pleadings were made oy tne appellantsfciaimants, but the evidence led in ma e tan .as not bi oimcning nature. No document relating to doing ciothes business was tiled by the appeilants/claimants. No other ' memai y eVide‘noe in that regard was also filed rhe tribunal neld that smce the deceased was a Jeep (Maxi Cab) owner and he was running the said jeep as a Taxi, he must be earning Rs 2GDGI— per month and Rs 24 D00/- per annum The Tribunal deducted i/J'd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the " pendency o. me appeiiams/claimants was worked out to Rs.i334f— per montn and ms 100uol- per annum The Tribunat applied multiplier of 16 to n saiu annual dependenCy of Rs 16008I- and the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,o6,12o;-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.12000l- tinder other heads and the total‘amount of compensation was worked out 3U \\ 3 MA, No.10$f2a03 i0 RS.2,68,‘a28/-. Over and above, the Tribuna1 also awarded Rs.6000/—on (LA acCOLiiit 0f damages to ihe Jeep (Maxi Cab) of the appellants/claimants. The Tribueai heid ihat the ir‘eurer of the truck (respondent No.3) was iiabie m pay the aforesaid amount of compensation. The Tribunal aiso awarded iniei'eei @ Q% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its reaiizaiion Learned oounsei for ihe appellants submits that the Tribunal has n‘t properly assessed the income of the deceased and the multiplier used was aiso on the tower side. He prays for suitable enhancement in the amount of compensation. 1 On‘the other hand, iearned counsel for the insurance Company opposes these arguments and supports the award passed by the Ciaims Tribunai. We have heard iearneo‘ counsel for the parties at length and have atso perused the records of the ciairn ease. True, the appeiiants/claintants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6GGDI— per ntenth b‘y‘running the Jeep (Maxi Cab) as a Taxi andby setting otd ctothes in the weekly markets, but the evidence led in that behaif was not of citnching nature. The said facts are only mentioned in the orat evidence of Sujit Kurnar Pal (AW-1), son of the deceased, but no document in this regardwas tiled by the appellants/ciaimants. The Tribunai considering ati the facts and circumstances of the case heid that since the deceased was the owner of the Jeep (Maxi Cab) and was running the said deep as a Taxi, he must be earning Rs.2ODO/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in such finding recorded by the Giaims Tribunal. in absence of any Other evidence, except the oral evidence of the son of the deceased, the Tribunai has rightty heid that the deceased must 'oe earning Rs.2GGO/— per month. The appeiiantsfctairnants have pleaded in para 8 of the claim 4 petition that the deceased was aged about 4O years. in the postmortem report atso, the age of th‘ deceased has been mentioned as 4O years. The appettantslctaimants are wife and children ‘of the deceased. Apoeiiant No.1 was aged about 38 years and other appeiiants were aged \abcut to, 14 a 5 years t \ ' \ \/t «vhf 4 MA. No.106i2003 Therefcre, the muiii'piier of 16 appHed in this case appeam to be on 0? higher Side in View sf the judgment ofvthe Apex Court rendered in the matter of Sara'a Marina (Sim) and others vs. Delhi Transport Cainaraiion arm‘ aimiher, (2609} 6 $.C.C. 121; in which, themuitiplier of 15 was; heid i0 be appropriate for the age group of 36 to 40 years. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for eni‘ranoemeht of the amourit of compensation in this matter. i L The appeat fiieo‘ by the appeiiants for enhancement of oornpehsatioh, therefore, ie iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. t ,_._n_.» Sd/- Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge "’*" Judge /