(^ Ciaimants HSGHCOVRT^OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR GUPTA,CJ. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Nisc.Appea! No.417 of2002. 1 Tetri Bai, W/o Gangaram, aged about 50 years, occupation house wife. 2 Moharial, S/o Gangaram, aged about 30 years, 3 Chintamani aiias Ramchandra, s/o Gangaram, aged about 25 years. 4 Tulesar, S/o Gangaram, aged about 20 years. A!l are resldent of Vlilage Kaiyanpur, Tahsi! Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) Non-applicants VERSUS Ramesh Singh, s/o Amar Singh Thakur, aged about 33 years, occupation Driver R/o Flat no.3 Gokhale market Dethi, thana Sabji Mandi, opposite Tees Hajari, Deihi (Driver) Bishan Singh S/o Amar Singh Thakur, aged about 43 years, R/o E- 271 Khajuri Khas (Deihi) Opp Khajuri Khas, Potlce Station Goku!puri (Deihi) The New Indla Insurance Co. Limited, through Senlor Branch Manager, Branch Office Korba, PO Korba Distt Korba (CG) (insurer) Devendra Singh, S/o Jeet Singh, Piot no.3, Market New Delhi, Vehide ovvner Truck no.DL -1 G/0445 (Owner) ,^-Sff^ f/ ® IVIisc. Aooeai under Section 173 ofthe SViotor Vehlcles Act. 1988. Present: Shri Atanu Ghosh, counse! for the appeliants. Shri Pankaj Agrawa!, counsel for respondent No.3. ?th (26ln February, 2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Oupta, CJ. The appeilants being dissatlsfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Additlonal Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 09.03.2002, passed in Claim Case No.71/2001, have fiied this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2) The ciaimants claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,0007- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of deceased Gangaram in the motor accident on 29.12.1995. 3) The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence !ed before it held that deceased Gangaram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.12.1995; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.DL-tG/0445; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New Indla Insurance Company Limsted, the Insurance Company was Eiabie to pay compensation to the daimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notionai income prescribed ® ^t. In the Second Scheduie under Section 163~A of the Motor Vehicies Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multipiier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the death ofdeceased Gangaram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing ofthe claim petltion tili the date of actuai payment. 5) Shri Atanu Ghosh, iearned counsel for the appeilants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his Income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in seiecting the iower muitipiier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only. 6) Shri Pankaj Agrawa!, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - New India insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. \ ^,.'^ (^ 7) True, the ciaimants pfeaded that, deceased Gangaram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as carpenter, but the evidence led in that behaif was not of ciinching nature. in thjs state of evidence, the Tribunal was ieft wlth no other optlon, but to assess the Income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 8) The claimants' dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usuai 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased. 9) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribuna! is certainly on the lower side. 10) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 7 woufd be appropriate in the present case. 11) In our considered opinion, further award of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants / ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.25,000/- inciusive of A. %., subbu Interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Llmited Is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.25,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 1- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge