'^ 6^) HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, GJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.fCtNo. 1247 of 2008 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Driver 1. Latelram, aged about 37 yeare S/o Tula Ram 2. Hemant Yadav, aged about 16 years, S/o Latelram 3. Ku. Kalpana Yadav, aged about 14years, D/o Latelram yadav 4. Ku. i^ivita aged about 11 years, D/o LateSram Yadav Appellant no. 2 to 4 being minor through their natural guardian father, Latelram yadav, R/o Manjkpur, Korba Versus 1. Shambhu Gupte, aged.about 2@ years, S/o Netulal Gupta, R/o Village Barma, Semra, Thana Narkulva, Distt. Devriya At present R/o in the house of Kalyan Singh, Jhabra, Deepika, Katghora. 2. Sukhjinder Singh S/o Jasvidnder Singh R/o Qr. No. B/1/32. Urjanagar, Gewa Pro^ect, Katghora, Distt. Korba. 3. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company through, Branch Manager, Shivmotan Bhavan. Vidhansabha Road, Tahsil apd Distt Raipur. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehictes Act. 1988 Present: Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Puneet Rupare, counsel for the appellants. ^ll %^^.^ <^'t^ ORDER (24th September, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Learnedcounsel for the appellants are heard on JA No.1/2008, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, IA No.1/2008 is allowed and the delay in filing theappeal is hereby condoned. 3) Leamed counsel for theappellants are heard on admissjon. 4) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.03.2008, passed in Claim Petition No.65/2007. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.33,50,000/- etaimed by the claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceas«ISmt Ranjana Yadav, for her death in the motor accident on 17.05.2©06 the Tribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.4,33,000/- ascompensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date ofthe fillngofthe claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the clalmants' evjdence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.3,000/- per month only. 7) The claimants pleaded that deceased Ranjana Yadav used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by running a dairy. The evidence led by the ciaimants bgfore the Tribunal in that behalf was not of clinching F ^y^ /"/^" "^ v| '• ^.^s^.. i "•. '%;%gl 1 •^:.-r /,y 2^. '^^"^ nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the Income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, on its own estimate. 8) On due consideratjon of the submjssions of learned counset for the appellants and the reasonings given by the Tribunal jn the impugned award, we do not flnd anyjnfirmity in the assessment 6f the income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 9) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 173rd towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased; 10) The multipljer of 17, selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceased, who was aged about 33 years. 11) The Interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is ateo on the higher side in view of the prevalent rate of interest. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensatSon awarded by the Trlbunal. 13} The appeal fited by the appeilants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma