HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon’bie Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon’bie Shri Rangnath Chandrakar,’JJ, G Misc. Appeal No. 503 of 2005 Appellants Renu Malik and others Vs. espondent ’ Shri Faguram and two others 4 ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION Sdl- .C l l R.Nhandrakar l Judge 3 42-2010 Hon’ble Shri T.P. Sharma , J. Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge 112-2010 Sdl- R.N.Chandrakar Judge 3 [12/2010 POST FOR ORDER ON 3 -12-2010 [——;:{*”’ ’ ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISRH, BILASPUR CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & ‘ HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J J. G Appellants 1. Renu Malik, w/o. Shivprasad Malik, aged Claimants about 45 years. Subhash s/o. Late Shivprasad Malik, aged about 25 years. 3. Vikas Malik, s/o. Late Shivprasad Malik, aged about 21 years. Asim Malik, S/o. Late Shivprasad Malik, ‘Aged about 21 years. AII r/o. village Kamalpur, P.S. Ramanujganj, Tehsil Pal, Distt. Surguja (CG). Misc. Appeal No. 503 of 2005 Versus Respondents. 1. Shri Faguram ‘s/o. Amrik Mochi, occupation — Owner of Si‘ngra Bus, r/o. Singra Kala Daltenganj, Distt. Palamu (Jharkhand).t (Owner) Ganesh Singh, s/o. Late Shri Ramji Singh, R/o./ Ghurnadh, P.S. Lesliganj, Distt. Palamu (Jharkhand).. (Driver). 3. The Oriental Insurance Qompany Ltd., Dharamshala Road, DaLtenganj, Distt. Palamu (Jharkhand). (Company) (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) Present: Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocatefor the appeilants. Mr. Arun Shukla, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2.- """‘\\ Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. \ a GA ORDER (Passed on 3 -1 2-2010) ' Per Ran nath Chandrakar J. e The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, and children of the deceased Shivprasad Malik have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 1/2003 iby the Motor Accident’Claims Tribunal, (for short, “the Tribunal”) Raamanujganj, vide award dated 17—12—2004. The appellants/claimantsfiled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor ,Vehicles Act, 1988 claimingv compensation of Rs.6,90,000/— for death of Shivprasad Malik in motor accident, which took place on 13-5—2001. Though the appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was earning Rs.5,000/— per month by doing the work of fishing and agriculture, but the evidence led ‘on that behalf was not clinching nature. Only the wife of the deceased Smt. Renu Mialk (AW/1) deposed in vague manner that her husband was earning Rs. 150}- - Rs. 200i— per day and Rs.50,000l— — Rs.60,000/— per annum from doing the work of fishing and agriculture, but AW/2 Khokan Mandal has not supported the version of AW/1 Renu Malik. Even otherwise, no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellantsiclaimants before the tribunal regarding definite income of the deceased. Thus, in these circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000l— per annum by fishing work and Rs.16,000/— per annum from agriculture. Thus, V; the Tribunal assessed ths annual income of the deceased at Rs.?1,000/-. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimants was workedout to Rs. 14,000/— per‘ann‘um. The tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 55 years, applied multiplier of 10. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs‘.1,40,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.24,500/— under other heads: the Tribunal awarded a total sum of‘Rs.1,64,500/— as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased — Shiyprasad Malik in the motor accident on 13-5-2001. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the ab0ve amount of compensation of Rs.1,64,500/— @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 9 The respondents were jointly and severally held liable by the Tribunal to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, argues that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal and a low compensation has been awarded to the appellants/claimants. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 3, have opposed these arguments and submitted that the compensation of Rsi‘f:64,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation. in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at Iength and also perused the records of the claim case. As stated above,‘ the appellantsiclaimants pleaded‘that the deceased was earn'ing Rs. 5000I- per annum by fishing work and Rs.50,000/— - Rs.60,000/— per annum from agriculture. To support their pleading, they have examined Renu Malik (AW/1) and Khokan Mandal (AW/2). AW/1 Renu Malik deposed that the deceased was having agricultural land ab‘out 3.5 acres and was u ‘ ‘ ‘ doing fishing work also. But thevevidence ofAW/1 Renu Malik has not been supported by AW/2 Khokan Mandal. ‘Apa‘rt from this, no documentary evidence in relation to the said business or income of ’the deceased and agricultural lands was tiled bythe claimants. lt is on this account, the Tribunal did not accept the oral evidence on this point of income of the deceased and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on its own estimate at Rs. 21 ,000/— per ~ annum. We do not find any fault in such approach made by the Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased. y: 5 The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3'd of the income of the deceased. 10. As far as multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 55 years in document (Ex.D3), the preliminary investigation report as also in postmortem report. This report (Ex. D/3) has not been challenged by the claimants/appellants. Ex.D/3 i*\ . mu has been proved by NAW No.1 Abraham Kerketta. It is on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 55 years and has applied multip|ier of 1O which also appears to be just and G proper. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not tind any scope for enhancement of compensation. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby V. ' dismissed. Sd/— T. P. Sharma Judge No order as to costs. w