HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No.841 of 2004 Appellant Claimant Smt Roopabai, W/o Late Shri Maujiram, aged about 40 years, Housewife, Rio Village Gandaghat Tahsil and Distt. Durg VERSUS Narendra Kumar, S/o .ChhotelaL present address Karan Nagar, Dug, Permanent address Civil Lines, Raipur. Dinesh Chandra Agnihotri, S/o Sharda Prasad Agnlhotri, R/o A-7, Ravi Nagar, Raipur Divisional Manager, The New India insurance Co. td., Parekh Bhavan, Durg Resgondents i "ii Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement Present : Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (21" January, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant — Smt. Roopabai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, DUrg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 21 07.2000, passed in Claim Case No.42/1999. , L 2). As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/— claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunat widow of deceased Maujiram, e by Filing claim etition under Section 66 of the Motor Vecles a p 1 hi Act, for his deh in the motor accident on 28.099, the at 4.19 Tribunal arded a tota sum of Rs.1 ,83,0l— as compensaion aw l 00 t iong with intrest @ 12% per annum from the date o mg of a e f in the clim petiti till the date of actual payment. a on 3 R . c la r ).\ Shri _P.. Patankar, teamed ounsel for the appelnt vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awdin lo arg w compensation of Rs.1 ,83,000/- only. 4) True, the claimant pleaded that deceased Maujiram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from cultivation of his agricultural land to‘ extent of 3 acres in the village. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 5) From para 10 of the award, we gather that the claimant did not produce any documentary evidence to establish that deceased Maujiram was having three acres of agricultural land in his possession. in this state of evidence, we do not find any innrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 6) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only‘tl3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses l though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as only two persons i.e. i ‘ l l claim'ant and her husband, deceased Maujiram were dependant on the income of the deceased. 7) The multiplier of 11 seiected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Maujilal was shown to be 51 years of age in his post mortem report and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla-Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121, wherein multiplier of 11 was prescribed for the age group between 50 — 55 years. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of income of the deceased or the claimant’s dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeal tiled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ‘, Sd/-‘ l RN. Chandrakar: Judge Sd/- l Chief Justice sUBBU l t r ,7, ,, ,p