\-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA KON'BLE !!L C.J.& SINHA, J. CLAJMANTS ^ lisc. Appeal 235 of 2006 2. Smt. Santoshi Bai Kashyap, W7o Late Shri Umendra Kashyap, Aged about 21 years, Ku. Pooja Kashyap, D/o Late Shri Umendra Kashyap, Aged about 2 3. Prabhakar Kashyap, S/o Late Shri Umendra Kashyap, Aged about 1 lants 2 & 3 are minor hrough Throuah Na{ui-a! Guardian i'>idtUIcil (mother) Smt. Santoshi Bai Kashyap, W/o Late Umendra Smt. Sohar Bai, W/o Shri Rameshwar Kashyap, Aged about 55 years, Rameshwar Kashyap, S/o Pyareial Kashyap, Aged about 62 All R/o Village Beiha, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tehsii - Navagarh, : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Nagina Singh S/o Gi!u Singh Thakur Aged about 30 years, R/o Rakha Khelairy, Dist: Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Mohd. Mojibul Rahman, S/o Abdul Hafiz Qureshi, Aged about Not known, R/o Viliage & Post Balumat, Near Masjjd, Dist : Latehar (Jharkhand) ^ *t^ 3. The National insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Office Vyapar Vihar Road, Taha Complex, Priyadarshin Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) JSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THj KSOTQRVEHSCLE ACT 198S Shri Goutam Khetrapal & Shri A.L. Singraul, leamed counsel for the appeliants. f16th Jiiiy. 20091 ^^ ^f s y f j^t ^" '^ ^ri» The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J.: On due consideration, the application for withdrawal of Vakalatnama filed by Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate is allowed and Shri Goutam Khetrapal is permitted to withdraw his Vakaiatnama from the case. 2. Shri A.L. Singraul, tearned counsei for the appeilants is heard on M.C.P. No. 277/2006, a petition for condonation of the deiay in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counset for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing. sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4: - ^M.C.P. No. 277/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 6. The appeltants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 18.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 97/2004. 7. As against the compensation of Rs.13,99,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Umendra Kashyap by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accldent on 06-10-2004, the Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,41,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiit the date of actual psyment. 8. Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appe!lants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- only. 9. True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Umendra Kashyap used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Electrician, She Tribunal on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased heid that the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month as was pleaded by them. The TriBunal, therefore, assessed his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. 10. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeltants and the reasonings given by the Tribunal in para 10 of the impugned award, we do not Tind any infirmity in the ^<~"^ / ^.^WiSS'S&i B •...as.^—igg assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. 11. The claimants' dependency also has been rightty assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting the usua! 1/3" of the sncome of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 12. The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency or the multiplier selected. 14. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi