IVISI HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J, 1 Chamaru S/o Nandu aged about 40 years, 2 Smt. Anjanl Bai W/o Chamaru aged about 37 yesrs, Al! are R/o. of village Tumgaon, Tah. and Disii: ! Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. 3 Avdhesh Kumar S/o Bindeshwari Slngh aged about 35 years, R/o Gondwara Basti, P.S. Urla, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) iy M. Agrawal Transport Co. Proprietor Suresh Kumar Tayal S/o Ramratan Aarawal Office Gondwara Raipur, P.S. Uria, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) M. Agrawa! Transport Co. Proprietor - Suresh Kumar Tayal S/o Ramratan Agrawal aged 54 years, Office Ring Road Gondwara, P.S. Urla Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Bokaro, By Divisiona! Office Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Policy No. 2004/3394 Date-27-01-2004to 26-01-2( MtSCELLENEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEH1CLES ACT 1988 Present: Shri S.C. Verma & Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, iearne counsel for the appellants. None Tor resDondents No. 1 & 2. . Shri Abhishek Sinha & Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counse! for respondent No.3. ith st,2! lowina order of the Court was passed bv Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. i, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learnedcounsei ( i' ; for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause forthe delay in filing the appeai. 3. M.C.P. No. 1204/2006, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay In filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri S.C. Verma & Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, learnedcounsel for the appeilants are heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Cialms Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.776/2Q04. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.15,20,000/- claimed by :tb®appeilants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dukalu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21 .12.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,32,400/- as compensation along with . l^ ^-•^ Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Learned counsel for ths appellants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,32,400/- on!y. 8. Even assuming the income ofthe deceased on the basis of the notional income taken by us in the year 2004, in other cases, at Rs.36,000/- per annum; assessing the claimants' dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum after deducting 50% ofthe income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses as his contribution to the parents after his marriage would have been reduced substantially; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10 as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards toss of estate, the clalmants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, which is less than the amount of Rs.2,32,^ lai. 9. For the foregolng reasons, we do not find any scope for .•** enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat. . 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to- be dismissed and is hereby cSismissed summarily. SdA. i/' ChiefJustice it; Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge '•L..-.-.-. t;iu)'N^^rniii'i '—'-.H^