,',fs*^ w C.J. & SUNIL KUIVIAR SSNHA, J. (Cl No. 718 of 1. Smt. Manik Bai, W/o Late Shri Kishunlaf, aged about 52 years 2. Vasudeo S/o Late Shri KishnlaE, Aged about 25 years, (Both r/o Qtr. N0.2/F, Street No.14, Khtirsipar, Zone-3, Sector -11, Bhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) s^on-appiicants Versus Jasbir Singh, S/o Darshan Slngh, aged about 39 years; R/o Qtr. N0.19/F, Street No. H, Sector - 5, Bhliainagar, Distt. Durg, Owner of orfending Vehlde - Chaimplon MinJdorNo. C.G.04/T/0970 Divisiorial Manager, The New india insurance Co. Ltd., Akash Ganga Parisar, Supela Bhiial, Distt. Durg. Jasbinder Singh, S/o Puran Singh, aged about 23 years, Address - New Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Smt. fVieera Jalswa!, iearned counset for the appellants. ORDER (25th June, 2008) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGypta,CJ. ^, Smt. Meera Jaiswai, learned counse! for the appeliants is heard on I.A.No.01/2008, an application for condonation of detay in fiilng the appeai. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing suffscient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appea!. 3. I.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is aiiowed and the delayin fiiing the appeal Is hereby condoned. 4. Smt. Meera Jaiswal, iearned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. Thls Is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Addltlonai Motor Accident CIaims Tribunai, Durg, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29-09-2007, passed in Motor CIaim Case No.69/2006. 6. The ciaimants, unfortunate wldow and son of deceased - Klshuniai dalmed compensation of Rs.25,93,872/- for his death in the motor accident on 23-10-2005 when the vehicie bearlng registratlon Ho. C.G.04/T/0970 in which he was traveliing dashed against the stationary Truck resulting in the instantaneous death of MshuniaE on the spot. 7. The cialmants further pleaded that deceased - Kishunla! used to earn Rs.17,1077- per mont'n as Chargeman in Bhilai Steej Plant and also used to get annuai bonus of Rs.12,700/-. 8 . The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied before it held that deceased ~ Kishunlai dled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23-10-2005 ; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registratlon No. C.G.04/T/0970; as the said vehicie was insured on the date of the accident with New Indla Insurance Company Limlted, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. The Tribuna! assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of the salary certificate (Ex. P/8) produced by the ciaimants before the Tribunal. By deducting 30% of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses, the cEasmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.75,600/- per annum. By mu!tip!ying the annual dependency of Rs.75,600/- with the multipiier of 8, the compensatlon was worked out to Rs.6,04,800/-. By awarding further sums under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.6,24,800/- as compensation to the daimants with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition ti!l the of actual payment. 10. Smt. Meera Jaiswai, learned counsel for the .appeilants 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.9,000/- per month only; in seiecting the fower fflultiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,24,800/- oniy. 11. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of the saiary certificate (Ex.P/8) adduced by the daimants themseSves in their evidence before the Tribunal. As the ciaimants did not Sead any evidence about payment l^.iiiiii ii iim of bonus to the deceased, the Tribunal, in our oplnion, has not committed any illegality in not taking into consideration the alteged payment of bonus to the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any infirmlty in the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. 12. Slmiiarly, the daimants' d-ependency also has been rightly by the Tribunai after deducting 30% of the income of the deceased towards hls personai. expenses. 13. The muitipller of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fauSt wlth considering that deceased - Kishunlal was 57 years of age on the date of the accldent as his date of birth shown in the certlficate Ex.P/8 was 03.10.1948. The fact of deceased being 57 years of age was a!so accepted in the evldence by appeliant No.1 - Smt.Manik Bal, widow of deceased Kishunlal sn her evidence before the Tribunal. The Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor vehides Act prescribes the muEtlpIler of 8 for the age group between 55-60 years. 14. We, therefore, do not fsnd any scope for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the clalmants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multipiier seiected. 15. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu