HIGH COXJRT OF THE CHHA'mSGAKH AT BILASPUR DB: Hoa'ble Suail Kumar Siuha & Hosi^ble R.L. Jhasiwar, J,J M.Aia. No. 528 of200S APPBLLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Smt. Ramayaiiniati, W/o Late Raoikrishna Patel, aged about 28 years, 2. Chiatajsiaai/ s/o Late Raoikrishaiia Patel, agecl about 16 yeai's, 3. Karaiimaiii, s/o Late Ramkrishna Patel, aged about 12 yeai's, 4. Roop Kumar s/o late Rainkrishiia Patel, aged about 10 years, 5. Roop Kumari, D/o Late Ramkrishna Patel, aged about 08 yeai's, 6. Raja s/o Late Ramkrishaiia Patel, aged about 06 yeai's, No. 2-6 are miaors tlirough Guardiaii niother Snit. Raraayaiimati All residents:- ViUage, Douasagar, Uptalisil Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspm' (C.G). Versus NON-APPLICANTS 1. Sheikh Rafik, s/o Shekh Dada Miyan, aged about 40 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Karbala Chauk, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G). Driver A. K. Chandrakai', s/o M.R. Chaadrakar, R/ o Raipur, District Raipur (C.G). Re^stered Ows&er Tlie Oriental Insuran.ee Co. Ltd., C.B.0-2, Madiaa Maajeel, First Floor, Jail Road, Kach.ah.ri Chauk, Raipur(C.G) Iiisiaraiaee Compaaiy M.ArO.No. 528/2009 ^ c. MEMPRANDUM OP APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri SamLir Suigh, counsel for tlie appeUants. ^ORAL.ORDErR (14.04.2009) The foUowin.g order of tlie Court was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heai'd on admission. The appeUaiits/claimants have flled this appeai for enhaiicement of compensation awarded in Claimi Case No. 119/2008 by IX Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G) on 26th of November 2008. The appellaiits are wife aad children of deceased Ramkrishna Patel who died in. a inotor accident which took place on 02.03.2007 wheii his bicycle was dashed by tiie offexidiag vehicle -Maruti Vaii beat-mg Regn. No. C.G. 08/ZD-0290. The appeUaiits pleaded that the deceased was a labourer aad was eaming Rs.7000/- per nionth. On takiag such plea, tliey claimed compensation of Rs.45,95,000/- on account ofdeafh offhe deceased ui tlie inotor accident. Para 23 of ttie impugned award would show tliat on fhe evidence of appeUaiit no.l Ramayaamati, wife of deceased, the Tribunal assessed tliat tlie deceased was eamiag Rs.2400/-per month and Rs.28.800/- per aiiaum. Such fmdiag is based on ftie analysis of tiie evidence of fhe wife of deceased. The Txibunal deducted l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased aiid tliereafter used tlie multiplier of 16 to tiie aaniial dependency of Rs.19,200/- aiid flie coinpensation was worked out to Rs.3,07,200/-, The Tribunal awarded a furtlier suai of rs.40,000^- under other ^^;.I1" M.AfCyNo. 528/2009 heads aiid ttie total aoiount of compensation was worked as Rs.3,47,200/-. The Tribunal also graated iaterest thereon at tlie rate of 6% per aiinum. from the date of fiUiig of fhe claim petition ttU its realization. Leamed counsel for tlie appeUaiits would subniit tliat the Tribunal has assessed a low iacoine of tlie deceased ancl has used a low multiplier. He fuillier subniits that the deduction of l/3rd towaiTls personal expenses of the deceased was not proper. We have carefuUy gone tlirough fhe contents of the iaipugned award. Thougli, it was pleaded that fhe deceased was eaiTiiag RSc7000/- per month as a labourer but fhe evidence ia this regard was not ofclmchiag nature. In Para 23 ofthe unpugued award, fhe Tribunal, on tlie basis of contents of pai-agraphs 20 & 21 of flie cross exaoiiaation of fhe wife of deceased, has recorded a findm.g fhat fhe deceased m-ust be eaiiiiiig Rs/2400/- per nionth by doin.g labour work. We do not fiiid aay fault in such fiiidnig recorded by the claiias Tribunal which was based on fhe evidence of the wtfe of deceased itself. So far as deduction of 1/3 amount froni flie iiicorae of fhe deceased is conceined, it caii also not be held to be iinproper particularly ia view of tlie decision of tlie Apex Court ia tlie matter of Stied Bashccr Ahamed and others -vs' Mohcwimed JameeE and anQther (2009] 2 SCC 225 wherein it was held that m case of bachelor, tlie general rule to deduct would be half and ia case of a manied person, it woidd be l/3rd, Admittedly tlie deceased was a iiiamed person. Therefore, such deduction cannot be said to be raiproper. As far as fhe miiltipUer is conceraed, fhe Tribunal has beeii quite Uberal iii applyiag tlie inultiplier of 16 particiilaiiy iii view offhe r~ f'fi^^ ^^s^r M-AfO.No. 528/2009 dictuni of apex Court iii tiie aiatter of New India ABSurancc C^fnpami Limited -s?s- Kalpana fSmt.f arRd others, 2007 3 SCC 538 iii which the multipUer of 13 was held to be proper where the deceased was aged about 33 years. For tlie foregoiiig reasons, we do find aiiy scope for enhancenient oftlie amount of coinpensation awarded by tlie Claims Tribunal. The appeal has no aierits. The same is liable to be dismissed aad is accorditigly dismissed at tlie miotion stage itsetf. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Rao