^^ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVIS80N BEESICH CORAIVi: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPUCANTS l11"1^— Misc. Appeaj (C) No. 104S of 2008 1. Kamala Bai W/o Late Kalam Banjara Aged about 35 years 2. Ku. Anjani Kumari D/o Shri Kalam Banjara, Aged about 20 years 3. Ku. Miiesh Kumari D/o Shri Kalam Banjara, Aged about 18 years 4. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Kaiam Banjara, Aged about 15 years 5. Paiit Kumar S/o Shri Kaiam Banjara, Aged about 10years 6. Ku. Priti Kumari D/o Shri Kaiam Banjara, Aged about 7 years Sl. No. 4 to 6 is minor through mother Kamala Bai W/o Kalam Banjara 7. Bihari Lal S/o Shri Mangal Banjara, Aged about 60 years R/o Viilage Tingipur, Tah. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus Sunil Singh S/o Shri Jageshwar Singh Thakur, Aged about 36 years Owner of vehicle No. MP22/B/4848 R/o Khampara Mungeli Tah. Mungeli District Bilaspur (C.G.) Radheshyam Thakur S/o Shri C.S. Parihar, Owner of Vehicle Bus MP 22 B 4848 R/o Mohd. Basir Khan Ward Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) "^ © 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) iVlisc. Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Azad Siddique, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (5th August, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Azad Siddique, Jearned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. This is claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims TribunaE, Mungeii, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17-01-2008, passed in Ciaim Case No. 42/2007. 3. The claimants, unfortunate widow, children and father of deceased Kalam Banjara, claimed compensation of Rs.43,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act for his death in the motor accident on 16-02-2007, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP 22/B/4848, resulting in hjs instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pteaded that deceased Kalam Banjara was aged about 37 years and used to earn Rs.400 - 500/- per day, as Mason. ^pi«,.^y '^^s^ ^' 4. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the ctaimants on the piea that the deceased himself was responsibie for the accident. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties heid that deceased Kalam Banjara died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16-02-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Bus; as the offending vehicle Bus on the date ofthe accident was insured with the New india Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rdofthe income of the deceased towards his personalexpenses, the cEaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muttipiying the annua! dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By awarding further sums under other permissible heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.3,77,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kalam Banjara in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,77,500/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. '^Jf 4 7. Shri Azad Siddique, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,77,500/- only to the claimants. 8. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kalam Banjara used to earn Rs.400 - 500/- per day, as Mason, but no cogent and reliable evidence was led in that behaif. In this state of evidence, the Tribuna! was leftwith no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 9. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 10. The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and Others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825 wherein the multjplier of 13 was found fo be appropriate by the Apex Court in the said case where the age of the deceased was 33 years. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either i%.®'!l^iBII^^JWil subbu on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissedsummarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge flllllllllllllll^