Coram APPELLANTS (Claimants) HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR DlViSIQNiBENCH HON'BLE SHWRAJEEV GUFTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. IVI.A.rciNo.73of2009 RESPONDENTS Non-applicants 1 3. 4. Smt. Manzil Arora, widow of Late Bharat Arora, aged about 28 years, earlier resident of Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilaj Nagar, Tel'isjl & Distnct Durg, permanent resicjent of Ambfkapur, DistriGt Sarguja. Master Nitesh, son of Late Bharat Arora, aged- about 5 years, a minor through tiis natural guardian-Mother, Smt. Manzil Arora(appellant No.1). Tekchand, son of Late Tejman Arora, aged about 60 years. Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Tekchand, aged 55 years. Shri No. 3 & 4 are r/o through Dhanraj Arora, New Market Heerakund, Distt. Sambalpur (Orissa) VERSUS 1. Rohani Prasad, son of Shri Ramadhaar, agedabQufSSyears, resident of IVIini Mata Nagar,lPtot No.374, Nagpur, P.S. Kalpana Market, District Nagpur (Maharashtra), permanent resident of Mandhir, P.S. Raipurkar Churiyaah, Digtrict RawapP) I 2. Nizamuddin, son of Nanhe Kttian, aged S43 years, r/io P!qt NoieO, ' Netaji <Nagar) Purana Pardinaka, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 3 The - New India Insurance Qompany Pvt. Ltd., Divi^ion Office-111- 1603C50, ; Ptoi Bhawan,Chandni Bagh.Nagpi.ir (iyaharashtra) 44002^{hroi.igh the Ij^^S^j^^^^^g^ '•Z-V ^-.?- ^..-?. Division Office, in front of Project Automobiles, Power House, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg. 4. Smt. Saryajeet Kaur, wife of Shri Noka Singh Siddhu, resident of Plot No.32, Netaji Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur (Maharastra). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLESAGT.1S88 Present: Shri Dinesh RK Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (22nd January, 2008) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Dinesh RKTiwari, learned counsel forthe appellants is heard on |,A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient eause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Dinesh RK Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal, (F.T;C.) Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide 'rl-'' \r •B.;. award dated 29.08.2008, passed in Motor Accldent Claim Case No.186/2006. 6) The clalmants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Bharat Arora claimed compensation of Rs.36,80,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his deathinthe motor accident on 23.08.2006, when his motorcycte was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.T.V. 2488; resulting in multiple serious injuries to Bharat Arora, who when taken to the hospital was declared dead. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Bharat Arora was aged about 30 yearsand used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by workingasSaies Managerin Sneha Eiectronics, Supela, Bhllai Nagar. 7) The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim anddenied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident; The driver ofthe truck was not holding a valid driving licence; and the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 8) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted before it held that deceased Bharat Arora died onaccount ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof thedriver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Tmck on the date of the accideQt was insured with the New India Insurance Company Pvt. "n-a. ^. Limited; the In^urance Company was liable to pay compensation tothe claimants. ; 9) The Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate of deceased Bharat Arora assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd Qf Rs.60,000/- towards the persortal expenses of the deceased,;the Tribunal assessed the claimants' dependency at Rs.40,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensatton was worked out to Rs.5,20,000/-. By awarding further sum under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum 6f Rs.5,64,500/- as compensation to the claimants for tbe death of deceased Bharat Arora in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,64,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 10) Shri Dinesh RK Tiwari, learned eounsel for the appellants vehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in not acceptihg the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.5,000/- per month only; in selecting the tower multiptier of 13; and in awardihg low compensation of Rs.5,64,500/-only. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bharat Arora used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month as Sales Manager but the salarycertificateadducedinevidenGebeforetheTribunalcertifled the incom^ of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month only. < - '! ,. • '' ' ' rz^ s /• subbu state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunalat Rs.5,000/- per month. 12) The Claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the deceased was aged between the age group of 30 -35 years and the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, found multiplier of 13 to be appropriate where the age of the deceased in the said case was 33 years. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15} The.appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarlly. ^__ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- §gnilKumiar Smha Judge ry- ^ f,:-?.