HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, <1. APPELLANTS M.A.(ClNo. 1267 of 2008 1. Kumai'i Shiwani Ctendranahu, aged about 09 years, D/o Sanjeev Chandcanahu, -Student 2. Vashu @ Apurvraj Chandranahu, Aged ab6ut05yeare, Both are Minor through Father Sanjeev Chandranahu. 3. Sanjeev Chandranahu, aged about 36 years, S/o Shivkumar Chandramihu, Caste Kurmi, All R/o Virendra Nagar. Kawardha, District Kawardha (C.G.) RESPONDENTS c Versus Amit Rai S/o Ravisbandcar Ral, Ca^e- Katar, Occupation Drtver, R/o tmlibhata, h4ahasamund, District ^4aha8amund (C.G.) (Driver of Ut fated vehtete Alto Car No.C.G.048/9950) Avdhesh Yadav, S/o B.R. Yadav, aged about 35 yeare, Occupation Govemment Service, R/o House No.11 Old Hospftal Campus, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District h4ahasamund (C.G.) The New India Insurance Com|»ny Ltd., Madina Btrilding, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Ratpur (C.G.) (Insurer Company of Vehiete Afto Car No.C.G. 04 B/9950) Miscellaneous Apoeal Under SectkMi 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct.1988 Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, teamedcounsel forthe appellant. 65 & lliiiurti G' ORDER (22nd Septembw, 2®( ) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri P.P. Sahu, teamed counset forthe appellarrts is heard onadroission. 2. The appellants are seeWng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accictent Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 20-06-2008, passed InClaim Case No.162^007. 3. The claimants, unfortunate minor cWklren and husband of deceased Laxmi Chandranahu clalmed compensa^on of Rs.53,00,000/- by flllng a claim pefition under Section166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for her death in the motor aceident on 29-06-2007 when the Atto Car bearing registration No.CG 04- B/99SO in which she was travetting met wtth an accicterrt and fell In the river due to rash and negflgent drivlng of its driver, resutting in her death. The clajmants further pteaded that deceased Laxmi Chandranahu was eaming Rs.9,000/" per month. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutlny of the evlctence ted by the parties held that deceased Laxmi Chandranahu died in the motor accldent on 29-06-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Alto Car; as the Alto Car on the date of the accident was insured with the New lrK)ia Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabte to pay compensatiorrtothectaimants. 5. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.92.000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.61 ,334/-. By multiplyjng the annual dependency of Rs.61,334/- with the muttlplier of10, tte compensation was worked out to Rs.6,13,3^)/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- toiwards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.6,17,340/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri P.P. Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.92,000/- per annum only; in setecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awardtog low compensation of Rs.6,17,340/- only. 7. The claimants though pleaded that deceased Laxmi Chandranahu used to eam Rs.9,000/- per month, the hcome t®< returns filed before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 revealed that the annual inconie of the deceased for these years were Rs.90,000/-, Rs.92,000/- and Rs.1,08,000/- respectively. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of leained counsel for the appellants and the reasonlngs gwen by (he Tribunal in the impugned award, we are satisfi^l that the assessmentof the income of the deceased by the Trtounal at II .1' Rs.92.000/- per annum does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 9. The deduction of the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses also cannot be found faultwith. 10. The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and her husband and the fact that her minor children were primarily dependent on the income <rf their father, does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Trifaunal. 12. The appeal flled by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilyf Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge subbu