HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No.1146 of2008 Appeilant 1. Jagarnath Choubey, S/o Devsai (Claimant) Choubey, aged about 45 years, 2. Raju Choubey S/o Devsai Choubey, aged about 40 years, Both are, Caste - Bramhan R/o Village Bangali Mohalla, Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil — Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Respondents No.1 1. (Driver) Respondents No.2 2. (Vehicie Owner) Respondents No.3 3. (Insuranee Company) Versus Md. Rijwan Eraki, S/o IVIoh.Shamim Eraki, aged about 27 years, Occupation - Businessmen, R/o Village - Bangali Mohalla, Surajpur, P.0.- Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Shamim Eraki S/o Shri Jakir Ali, aged about - 50 years, Occupation - Businessmen, R/o Village Surajpur, P.S. & Tah. - Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act.1988 Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER •th (25mAugust,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of the leamed counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. . 3. I.A. No. 01/2008,therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Surajpur (for short "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 07-01-2008, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.55/2006. 6. The claimants, unfortunate adopted son and nephew of deceased Duni Bai claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Aet for her death in the motor accident when she was dashed by the offending vehicle Pick-up Van, bearing registration No. C.G. 15/A 5001, resulting in her instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Duni Bai used to earn ^^ Rs.7,000/- per month by selling general household articies and by singing songs in the marriage ceremonies. 7. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties before it held that deceased Duni Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 1 6-02-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offendlng vehicle Pick-up Van; as the offending vehicle Pick-up Van on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 8. The Tribunal found the evidence led by the claimants about the income ofthe deceased unreliable and therefore, assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Consldering that deceased Duni Bai was aged about 60 years, the Tribunal multiplied the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 8 and the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.6,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.86,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Duni Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 7% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.86,500/- from the date of filing ofthe claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 4^ 9. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.86,500/- only. 10; Deceased Duni Baiwas aged about 60 years. The evidence ted by the claimants about her income was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly assessed her income on the basis of notional income. The claimants, namely, Jagarnath Choubey and Raju Choubey are grown-up persons aged about 45 years and 40 years respectively. They must be having their own independent income. As such, it can safely be inferred that they were not dependent on deceased Duni Bai. 11. The compensation of Rs.86,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facte and circumstances ofthe present case. 12. As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed^.^ummarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice SdA Sunsl Kumar Sinha Judse subbu