@ HkGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH \ CQRAM: HON§311E SHRR RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE $HRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 421 of 2G06. AppeiEants 1 Smt Geetanjaii Soni Aged about 27 CEaimantg years Wlo. Late Ramesh Soni 2 KU. Prerana Soni, aged 4 years D/o. Late Shri Ramesh Soni. 3 Nakul Soni, aged 6O years 8/9. me Dhaneshwar Soni 4 Smt. Padma Sorii, aged 55 years, W/o. Shri Nakui Soni 5 Nilesh Soni, aged 22 years S/o. Shri Naku! Soni AH R/o. Sector-5, D-425/426 Taigor Nagar, Tah. 8: District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Respondente 1. M/s. Vibsan Industries Pvt Ltd. Men-Appiicants Through : Director Second Floor Baiaji Mangalgiri Chambers, Siripuram Visakhapattanam (A.P.). 2. Sandeep Banspal, aged about 40 years Sio. Shri SP. Banspal Rio. M.I.G.- 26, Housing Board Coiony, Near Bharatmata School, Tatibandh Raipur (CAG.). 3. Bajaj Ailianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office GE. Plaza Airport Road, Verawada Pune (Maharashtra). Misceltaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1%8 Preeent : Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. Shri Deepak Gupta, counset for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2 though served. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23th July, 2003) \The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principe! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Ralpur (for short ‘the jTribunal’) vide award dated 24.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.49/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.78,5G,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfodunate'widow, minor daughter, parents and younger brother of deceased Ramesh Soni‘ aged about 35 years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, forhis death in the motor accident on 01 .052005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,1 (3,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- oniy. 4) Shri Rakesh Pandey and Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsei for respondents No.1 and 3, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, supported the award. 5) The claimants themselves adduced in evidence the income tax returns cf deceased Ramesh Soni showing his income at Rs.1 ,45,389/— for the assessment year 2005—2006. The Tribunal on the basis of the income tax returns of the deceased assessed .r Alf égijk; his income at Rs.1,50,000/— per annum. As the income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunai on the basis of his income shown in the income tax returns, which were adduced in evidence by the claimants themselves, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai. 6) The claimants’ dependency aiso has been rightiy assessed by the Tribunai by deducting the usual 1!3rd of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses. 7) . The muitipiier of 15 seiected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be a low multiplier in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New IndiaAssurance Cot Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825,‘wherein the multiplier of 13 ‘was found to be appropriate for the deceased aged about 33 years. 8) We, therefore; do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants’ dependency loy the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeat filed by the ap'pellantslclaimants for subbu enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed Sdl- ‘ Sd/d Sun-n igiilggres‘mfi Chief Justice ii.»