.-^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Is~ Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-aDplicants M.A.fONo. 239 of 2010 1. Rukhmanibai Patel, aged about 25 years, widow of Late Shri Ravishankar Patel. 2. Ku. Riya Patel, aged about 5 years (Minor) daughter of Late Shri Ravishankar Patel. 3. Babu Patei, aged about 2 years (Minor) son of late Shri Ravishankar Patel. Appellants No. 2 and 3 are minors, through their natural guardian and mother namely Rukhmanibai Patel, aged about 25 years, widow of Late Shri Ravishankar Patel (Appetlant No.1) 4. Tarabai Patel, aged about 45 years, wife of Shri RohitPatel. All are residing at village Hamalpara, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. Smt. Santoshi Devi Agarwal, wifeof Shri Banarsi Das, R/o. Dabhra Road Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (owner of the offending vehicle) 2. Narayan Jha @ Pawan, son of Shri Ramudar Jha, R/o. Bharatpur, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Driver of the offending vehicle) i... 3. The New Indla tnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer ofthe offending vehicle) Appeal U/S.173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Roop Naik, counsel for the appetlants. (9ihl The following order of the Court was passed by evGupta,C.J. Shri Roop Naik, learned counsel for the appeilants is on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.11 .2009, passed in Claim Case No. 22 of 2009. 3) As against the compensation 6f Rs.27,64,000/- claimed by theappellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Ravishankar Patel, by filing a claim petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 03.04.2009, the Tribunal awardedatotal sum of Rs. 4,54,OOO/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. -fc (.. 4) Shri Roop Naik, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- only. 5) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ravishankar Patel used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month as helper in the Truck, no reliableand cogent evidence was led to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. Neither the employer of the deceased nor any of his co-worker was examined before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, We do not firid any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month on its own estimate. 6) 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. 7) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance against the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed under Motor Vehictes Act. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the .\ -^ subbu assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and.is hereby dismissed summarily.;—^"^ Sd/- Chief Justice .,Sd/-.1' - k>.' R.N.Chandrakar f° Judge | s