@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR 9!‘..'!$!nl“ BENCH ORAM HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J LION BLE v. .Rl SJNIL E’UMAR S'NHA J Musc Anneal No.218i2G04 Husain Khan S/o Sri Dahab Khan Aged ,kAn-L auum :0 co i. yédla F..- 2 Firoja Begum W/o Sri Husain Khan Aged abaut 40 year 3 Shamdad PanNeen D/o Husain Khan Aged about 18 years 4 Amjad Khan Slo Sri Husain Khan Aged about 2O years Asif Khan S/o Sri Husain Khan aged about 16 years 6 Ashraf Khan Sio Sri Husain Khan Aged about 16 years 7 Nasir Khan S/o Sri Husain Khan Aged about 15 years AII residents are R/o Tatyapara, Raipur Tahsil & DEstt Raipur (CG) Appeltants No.5 to 7 are represented hereby father, appeltant No.1. appenants Ckai‘mants VERSUS unas Narode srdr Sri Amba Das. Non-apatioants Natode, Ro shirthped, Meharbao‘a," Q Respondema Thana — Ganesh Pet, Nagpur, (Maharashtra) ' 2 Manohar Singh Oberai S/o Sri Teja Singh Oberai, MP Bangat Roadways Ring Road Bhanpuri Raipur 3 United India Insurance Company Limited, Divis'ionai Office No.1, Mount Road Nagpur (Maharashtra) Through Divistonai Manager, Divisional Office Krishna Comptex, Kaghahari Chowk, Raipur (CG) Apnea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 - Present : Shri SC Verma, counsei for the appeiiants. C s None for the anpenants No 1 & 2 Shri Abmshek'Sinha, counéel for-respondent N03. ORDER 429‘“ Juiy, 2:299) The foliowing order of the Court was passed' by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned oounsei for the appellants are heard on MCP No.1527/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeaL 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. .3) . MCP No.1527/2004, therefore, is allOWed and the delay of 14 days is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by, the First Additional Motor Accident x. Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 02.69.2003 passed in Claim Case No.28l2003. ' 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, sister and brothers of deceased Firoz Khan by filing claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 08.12.2002, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum of Rs.1,94,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ‘of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Vii @ 7) .Shri SC Verma, iearned counsei 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 and Rs.36,000/— per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,94,000/- only. 8) True the claimants pleaded that deceased Firoz Khan used to earn Rs.4,000/— per month as cooler mechanic, but the evidence ied in that behalf was not of clinching nature. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000l'— per month. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only U3” of ‘the’income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, as the deceased at the time of the accident was un-married and after his marriage his contribution to the claimants would have been substantially reduced. 10) For the foregoing reasons we 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. 11) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. s Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha l i Judge \/g r g Sd/— - ‘ / ‘ Chief JuStice padma