@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DJVISJONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR! SUNJL KUMAR SiNHA, J. APPELLANTS APPUCANTS c Misc. ADpeal (Cl No. 1252 of 2008 1. Smt. Anusuiya Bai, aged about 40 years, Wd/o Ramdhun Gahwai, 2. Ku. Neeiu @ Neelam, aged 15 years, D/o Rarndhun Gahwal, 3. Rakesh Kumar, aged 13 years, S/Q Ramdhun GahwaE, 4. Mahesh Kumar, aged 10 years, S/o Ramdhun Gahwai, No. 2 to 4 minor, through their natural guardlan mother Smt. Anusujya Bsi, aged 40 years, Wd/'o Ramdhun Gahwai, Aii R/'o Viilage Ranigaon, Tahsi! Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Vetsus RESPONDENTS NON-APPLiCANTS 2. kk. ^' Radheshyam Jaiswal, S/o Shobha Ram Jalswal, R/o Vlilage Chorha Stnghanpuri, P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. BJSaspur (C.G.) Maiik Ram Sahu, S/o Pati Ram Sahu, R/o Thakur Deo Para, Jarhagaon, P.S. Jarhagaon, Distt. BJ!aspuT (C.G.) 3. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Nsar Adarsh Ba! Mandir, Maln Road, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) NI:SCELLA.NEOUS_APPEALUNDER_SECTiQNi71QFTHE VEHSCLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, iearned counsei for the appeilants. 0_R_D_E_R (15th September, 2008) 5 _„ c: The foltowing order of t'ne Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri Ravindra Agrawai, iearned counss! for the appeliants is heard on admission. 2) This is claimants' appeal- for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Addltional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Bliaspur, (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 28.04.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No.01/2008. 3) The cialmants, unfortunate, widow and mlnor children of deceased Ramdhun Gahwai ciaimed compensation of Rs.15,78,000/- by fiiing a ciairn petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, for hls death In the motor accldent on 07.10.2007, when his motorcyde was dashed by the offending vehide IVIini Bus bearing registration No. C.G.-10-ZA/0263, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The ciaimants further pleaded that deceased Ramdhun Gahwal used to earn Rs.400/- per day by running a hotel and was aiso getting Rs.28,000/- per annum from agricuJture. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evldence Sed by the parties held that deceased Ramdhun Gahwai died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.10.2007; the accldent occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Mini Bus; as the offending vehicte Mini Bus on the date of the accident was insured wlth the Oriental insurance Company Limited; the insurance Company was ilabie to pay compensation to the claimants. ^" "^. ^^. -\ ^-^.^" ^. I1 € -.1 5) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.42,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.28,000/- per annum. By multlpiying the annual dependency of Rs.28,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensatlon was worked out to Rs.3,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,33,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramdhun Gahwai in the motor accident. The Tribunaj further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- @ 7% per annum from the dafe of f'iiing of the claim petition tili fhe date of actuai payment. 6) Shri Ravindra Agrawai, iearned counsej for the appeliants vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the Income of the deceased and in assesslng the income at Rs.42,000/- per annum only; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,33i000/- only. 7) True; the cJaimants pieaded that deceased Ramdhun Gahwai used to earn Rs.400/- per day by running a hotei, the evidence led by the claimants in that behaif was highly discrepant. AVV-1 Srnt. Anusuiya Bai, widow of deceased Ramdhun Gahwai deposed that the daiiy saie in the hotei was to the extent of Rs.1,000/-. AVV-2 Dhruv Kumar Gahwai in his examination-in-chjef stated that the daily saEe in the hotei was to the extent of Rs.3,000 - 4,000/-, v^hereas in his cross-examination, he stated that the daiEy saJe was of Rs.1,500 - /-^^ • '% &., ..^. • "I ^. ^" / '"•^^^ 0 ^i \, 2,000/-. The Tribunal faced with the above highly discrepant evidence about the income of the deceased, assessed his income from the hotef at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By adding another sum of Rs.6,000/- per annum from agriculture, the total annuai income of the deceased w/as assessed at Rs.42,000/- per annurn. 8) On due consideration of the submlssions ot' learned counse! for the appeilants and the nature of the evidence ied by the daimants about the Income of the deceased, we do not flnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.42,000/- per annum. 9) The ciajmants' dependency aiso has been rightiy assessed by the Trlbunal by deductlna the usua! 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses. 10) The multiplier of 11 seJected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fauit with in view of the age of deceased Ramdhun Gahwai and his widow, ciaimant Smt. Anusuiya Bai. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the dajmants: dependency by the Tribunal or the rnuitipEier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dlsmjssed and is hereby dismjssedsur?nmarijy. Sd/- Chief Justice s<v- r Sunil Kumar Sinha | Judge v^