OF • vy.^LciJ^l:6j!.O..L. Coram : CJ. & SHRI SUNIL J. Claimants r '• II; NON-APPLICANTS MA.C.fPRINo.67of2008 1. Smt. Utrabat, Wd/o Late Sita Ram, aged about 35 years, 2. Dujram, S/o Late Sitaram, aged about 17 years 3. Kanhaiya, S/o Late Sitaram, aged about 13 years 4. Ku. Kavita Sahu, D/o Late Sitaram, aged about 9 years 5. Kumari Savita, D/o Late Sstaram, about 6 years No. 2 to 6 minors, through naturai guardian mother Smt. Utrabai, VVd/o. Late Sitaram Sahu, Ali R/o. Vlllage Risda, Tahsi! Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. S. RamManna Rao, S/o Apparao Caste - Kafu, aged about 37 years, R/o. Dabbividhl, Dandigram Road, Salur, District Vijyanagram 2. K. Suribabu, S/o. Late K.V. Rammana, R/o. Dabbividhi, Dandigram Road, Saiur, Distrlct Vljyanagram (A.P.) 3. United india tnsurance Company Limited, Through Branch Managsr, Branch Office Main Road Belgam, Parvasipuram Thorough : Branch Manager, United india insurance Company ^' ^ BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.04 11:08:15 +0530 <- Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tahsll and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Miscellaneou_s_ADDea! underSection 1T3oftheMotor Vehicies Act. Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, iearned counsei for the appeiiants. (30th Aprii, 2008) The following order of the Court was by ©upta,C.J. Learned counsei forthe appeliants Is heard on admission^.-'- 2. This is daimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Addltional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Biiaspur, (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 19-09-2007, passed in Claim Case No. 40/2006. 3. The claimants, unfortunate widow and mlnor chlidren of deceased - Slta Ram claimed compensatlon of Rs.22,25,OC^V- by ^- fjiing a cialm petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accldent on 16-06-2006 when he was dashed by the offending vehicie ~ Truck bearing registration No. A.P.35/T-9619, resuitlng In his instantaneous death on the spot Itself. The claimants further pieadsd that deceased - Sita Ram was aged about 36 years and used to earn Rs.8,000 - 8,000/- per month by running a hotei. 4. The owner and driver of the offendlng vehicis - Truck did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunai. 5. The insurer of the offending vehicle - Truck contested the claim and denied its jiability to pay compensation to the claimants on the piea that the deceased himseif was responsibie for the accident; the driver of the offending vehicie - Truck was not hoiding a vaiid driving licence snd the Truck was belng piied in breach of the poiicy conditions. 6. The Clalmants examined AW/1 - Smt. Utrabai and AW/2 - Yogesh Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the Truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. .<. -" 7. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutlnyof the evidence ied before it heid that deceased - Sita Ram died on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16-06-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the drlver of the offending ve'nide - Truck; as the offending vehicie - Truck, on the of the accident, was Insured wit'n the United Indla insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable td^'pay compensation to thedaimants. 8. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deductlng 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personai expenses of the dsceassd, the cSaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multipiylng the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitlplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,01,000/- as compensation to 4 the claimants for the death of deceased—Sita Ram In the motor accjdent. The tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition til! the date of actuai payment. 9. Shri Goutam Khetrapai, learned counsel for the appeilants vshementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and In avvarding low compensation of Rs.4.,01 ,000/- on!y. 10. True, the cialmants pieaded that deceased - Slta Ram used to earn Rs.6,000 - 8,000/- by running a hotel, but the evidence ied in that behalf was not of cilnching nature. In thls of evidence, we do not flnd any infirmity in the of the income of the by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11. The clalmants' dependency a!so has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting usual 1/3rd of the income of the decteed towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 12. The multipiler of 16 seiected by the Tribuna! considering that deceased - Sita Ram was 36 years of age, is rather on the higher slde in vlew of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Company Limited Vs. & Othsrs; reported in ACJ 828, v^hereln the multipiier of 13 was heid to be appropriate where the deceased was aged about 33 years. 13. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! either on account of the -?<:., subbu assessment of the Income of the deceased or the daimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the muitiplier seiected. 14. The appeai fiied by the appeilants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation; therefore, is iiable to be dismissed summarily. 15. The appea!, therefore. is dlsmissed summarity on merits notwithstandlng that it is barred by tlme. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge / ."c-