@ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DjVISJONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. J. .<"••' Appellants Ciaimants !^' M.A.C.No. 310 of 2010 1) Smt Ralna Bai wife of iate Radhey Lal Hattewar, aged about 58 years 2} Smt Anita wife of Mohan Lai Hattewar, aged 33years 3) Kumari Priyanka D/o Mohan Lai Hattewar, aged 18years 4) Kumari Diksha, D/o Mohan Lai Hattewar, aged 14years 5) Kumari Rashmi, D/o Mohan Lal Hattewar, aged 12 years 6} Kumari Akansha, D/o Mohan Lal Hattewar, aged 10 years 7) Krishna Kant, S/o Mohan Lal Hattewar, aged 8 years No.3 to 7are minors, through their / natural guardian and mother Smt Anita wife of Mohan Lal Hattewar AIJ are R/o Mohaila Mathpara, Ward No.30, Gali No.1, Gayatri Dharmakanta, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-Appiicants. 1) Ram Das Yadav, Son of Bhanuram Yadav, aged 48 years, Driver, R/o Village Manki, Post Somani, Distrjct Rajnandgaon (CG) 2). Smt Priti Kaur, wife of Jasbir Singh, Chawla (Vehicle Owner), R/o Chandra Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2 . y. 3). The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Officer, Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) Appeai u/S 173ofthe Motor VehicIesAct. 1988 Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (25th March, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 2. The appeliants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.47/2009. 3. As againstthe compensation of Rs.68,40,000/- ciaimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate mother, sister-in-law, nephew and niece of deceased Khemraj Hattewar, by fi!ing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, forhis death in the motor accident on 24.01.2009, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the daim petition till the date of actuat payment. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Khemraj Hattewar died on account of the injunes sustained by him En the motor accident on 24.01.2009; the accidentoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehide truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of the iacome of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the claimants' dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the arinual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Khemraj Hattewar in the motor accident on 24.01.2009. The Tribunal further directed payment of jnterest @ 6% per annum, on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,54,000/", from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actuai payment. 6. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased 4 ^ £; towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of8; andin awarding low compensation ofRs.1,54,000/-only. 7. True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Khemraj Hattewar used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month as Typist in the District Court Bar of Rajnandgaon, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8, The deduction Of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that deceased Khemraj Hattewar was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage his contribution to the mother would have been reduced substantially. The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased is perfectiy in line wifh the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed andothers Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2Supreme Court Cases 225. 9. Muitipiier of 8 also is appropriate in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case considering that claimant No.1 Smt. Raina Bai, mother of deceasedwas 58 years of age on the date of the accident. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the multiplier seiected. 11. The appeal fiied by the appetlants/ ciaimants * for enhancement of the compensatjon, therefore, i's iiable to be dismjssed and 1s hereby dismissedSummariEy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge .:'<