^ ^ 11 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appellants (CIaimants) Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 644 of 2007 1 Lalit Kumar aged 37 years, S/o. Late Bhukhau Kumar 2 Kumari Sapana aged about 09 years. 3 Kumari Sanjana aged about 06 years, D/o. Lalit Kumar. Both minors through their Guardian all are resides at Village - Memradhih, P.S. Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1 Baraturam @ Ramlal S/o Shri Sukhadas Aged 30 years, R/o Village - Khamhariya Thana - Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG) 2 M/s Nandlal Jaswani Makdum Makers, Budhawari Bazar Bilaspur at present resides'at Maha Satti ward, Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Baloda Bazar, Through Oivisional Office, Jail Road, Madina Building Raipur (CG). Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present Shri J.N. Nande, iearned counsel forthe appellants. Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for respondents No.1&2 ;Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (14tn September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ l—a^ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancemtent of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.74/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Rajkumari, by ftling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 05.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Sl^ri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently<argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensationof Rs.3,32,000/- only. 8) The claimants themselves pleaded that deceased Ra|kumari used to earn Rs.100/- per day as Labour. The Tribunal accepting oA? the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, assessed her income at Rs.2,500/- per month considering that she would be getting work only for 25 days in a month. 9) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- per month. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Rajkumari was shown to be 36 years of age jn the claim petition. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge