^- !8'>m3Rt< M.A.fONo. 969 of 2008 Smt. Janki Sinha and others Nakul Sahu and others Award for consideration Sd/- 2_c. /09/2011 Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Sd/- ,-:Ghief Justice »/09/2011 Post for pronouncement on^ /09/201 1 Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge k. -^^- M.A. (C) No. 969 of 2008 •^ 1. Smt. Janki Sinha W/o late Sandeep Kumar Sinha, aged about 26 years. 2. Sheshank Kumar S/o Late Sandeep Kumar Sinha, aged about 5 years 6 months. 3. Kumari Anjali D/o Late Sandeep Kumar Sinha, aged about 2 years and 6 month, 4. Jethu Kumar Sinha, S/o Mangiu Ram Sinha, aged 53 years. 5. Smt. Ram Kumari Bai W/o Jethu Ram Sinha, aged about 48 years, A!l resident of village and Post Sonar, Pendravan, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (CG) lant No. 2 and 3 through legal guardian mother appellant No. 1) 1. Nakul Sahu S/o Janglu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o village Chichola, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver of Minibus No. CG-04-ZA-0203) 2. Krishna Kumar Yadav, S/o Sita Ram Yadav, aged about 39 years, R/o Qtr. No. 789, Housing Board Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). (Registered owner of Minibus No. CG-04-ZA-0203) 3. Smt. -Gangadevi Pandey, W/o late Deshraj Pandey, R/o Through : Dr. P.N. Mishra, Ward No. 2, Raj Family Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Present owner of Minibus No. CG-04-ZA-0203) 4. The National insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur (CG) issuing Authority : Second Manjil Mobine Mahal, GE Road, Raipur (CG), through : Shriman Manager, Mandal Officer, the Nationai Insurance Co. Ltd. Akash Ganga, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil and Distrlct Durg (CG). (Policy No. 320800/31/05/6300004741 period from 08.02.2006 to 07.02.2007) (Insurer of Minibus No. CG-04-ZA-0203) (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE EViOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (DBi Hon'ble Mr. Rajeev Guota. CJ & Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for appellants. Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri BN Nande, Advocate for respondent No. 4. This is ciaimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Vlllth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 84/06 vide award dated 31.01.2008. As against compensation of Rs.44,48,400/- claimed by unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Sandeep Kumar Sinha by filing appllcation under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 25.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,32,500/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drlving of driver of offending' vehlcle Minjbus bearing registration No. CG-04-ZA-0203; Sandeep Kumar Sinha died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; insurance company liable for payment of compensation as respondent/insurance company could not establish breach of pollcy conditions; assessed and awarded aforementioned amount of compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of accident tlll its actual payment. 4. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appeilants would submit: the Tribunal has fallen in error in sssessing the monthly income of deceased as Rs.3000/- only and thereby in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Basant Dewangan and Shri BN Nande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 & 4/The National Insurance Company Limited; supported the award impugned and submitted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Tribunal. 7. True, the ctaimants pleaded, deceased Sandeep Sinha was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running medical stores but failed to substantiate the same by ieading cogent and clinching evidence therefor. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the income of the deceased, as pleaded . by the appeilants/claimant and in assessing the income of the \: fy- 1 Rs.36,000/- per annum on deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month its own estimate. 8. After deducting usual 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of deceased, the claimants' yearly dependency Vifas assessed as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. 9. The deceased was of the age between 30-35 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 1 7 applled by the Tribunal is in fact on the higher side in view of the dictum of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for age group between 31 -35 years. By multiplying ciaimants annual dependency with muitiplier of 17, the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 4,08,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 24,500/- on other heads, and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.4,32,500/- aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 11. Considering every aspect of the matter, we do not find any scope of enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, being devoid of substance, is li.able to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order asto costs. •V Sd/- •Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge Sahu