HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1491 of2009 1) Smt. Dayabai Yadav, W/o Late Sewakram Yadav, aged about 40 years, 2) Minor Gangabai Yadav, D/o Late Sewakram Yadav, aged about 17 7z years. (Appellant No.2 being minor on behalf of through her legal guardian Mother appellant No.1 Smt. Dayabai Yadav) Both R/o - Village - Bhimkhoj (Khallari), Police Station, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS Versus 1. Sukhdev Singh Soni, S/o Kishan Singh Soni, aged about 50 years, R/o - G.E.Road, Rajnandgaon, Police Station, Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver of offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G./06/B/1713) 2. Sukhvinder Singh Gill, S/o Bhajan Singh Gli, aged about (not mentioned), R/o - 'Gilt Roadways, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Registered owner of offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G./06/B/1713) 3. The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Raipur, (C.G.) Through - Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G./06/B/1713) MEMORANDUIVI OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTACT.1988 Appearance: Shri C.P.Lahrey, counsel forthe appellants/claimants. M.A.(ClNo.1491 of 2009 ORAL ORDER (04.12.2009) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Mr. C.P.Lahrey, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No. 01/2009, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal is barred by 30 days of limitation. 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing of the appeal. 4. Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2009 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Heard on admission. 6. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 169/2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat, Mahasamund (C.G.) vide award dated 10.04.2009. 7. The appellants/claimants are the mother and sister of deceased - Prabhulal who died in the motor accident on 16.07.2008. They claimed compensation of Rs.23,38,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Prabhulal was aged about 22 years on the date of accident. The appellants/claimants pleaded that deceased—Prabhulal was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running dairy and also by running 'Dhaba'. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month on account of above business but no documentary evidence to this effect was produced and the oral evidence led on account of income of the deceased was not of clinching nature. Therefore, the Tribunal on its own assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was worked out to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal used multiplier of 10 to the aforesaid dependency and the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, the ^.-^. '^ ^."^,*. ^^ M.A.(Cl No.1491 of 2009 ^- Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation to the appellants on account of death of deceased - Prabhulal in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till its realisation. 8. Mr. C.P.Lahrey, learned counsel for the appellants, argues that the income has not been properly assessed; multiplier has not been properly chosen and a low compensation has been awarded. 9. We have examined the contentions raised by Mr. C.P.Lahrey, learned counsel for the appellants. 10. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded finding vide paragraph 14 of the award that the evidence led on behalf of claimants for proving the income of Rs.10,000/- was not of clinching nature as no documents were filed by them to support their contentions that either the deceased was running a tDhaba1 or he was doing dairy business. The Tribunalhas taken Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased which we have also taken in many cases where the accident took place in the year 2008 and the claimants could not adduce clinching and reliable evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the finding of the Tribunal about income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11. We also find that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses ofthe deceased, whereas, this deduction would have gone to 50% in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sved Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohammed Jameel and another, 2009 f2) SCC 225 or even to the extent of 2/3rd as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Donat Louis Machado and othersv. L. Ravindra and others. (1998) 8 SCC 633. 12. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly chosen the multiplier of 10 in this case in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay -Vs- Laxmanlver & another. (2003) 8 SCC 731. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. // M.A.(ClNo.1491 of 2009 ^w^ 14. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^N»-^.