iCELU 1. Smt. Anita Petere, aged about 4S years, widovi/ of Late Shri Nirmal Peters. 2. Abhinav Peters, aged about 18 years, son of Late Shri Nirmai Peters. Both residents of Shailendra Apartment, Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Biiaspur, Tehsil & Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. Abdul Meman, son of Rahman, caste- Musalman, resident of Bhunda, Tahsii Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Rajesh Agarwal, son of Satyanarayan Agarv/ai, aged about 35 years, resident of Main . Road Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipati. 3. The Oriental insurance Company Ltd., High Court Road, Bilaspur, Teh. & Distt. Bilaspur. 4. Ashish Bahal, son of Surendra Singh Bahal, resident of Ward No.02, Vishvifanath Colony, Chhattarpur (M.P.) 5. Sardar Nirmal Singh, son of Channan Singh, resident of Ward No.4, Siddh Ganeshan IVtarg, Chhattarpur (M.P.) 6. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mendhekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Biiaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur 7. Anu Deepak James, son of D. James, resident of Jarhabhata Chowk, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Tehsii & District Bilaspur. 8. National Insurance Company Limited, B-1, Taha Complex, Priyadarshini Nagar, -Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspuc. Present : Mr.Gautam Khetrapal, learnedcounselforthe appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th February, 2007) Followin.o oral order ofthe Court was passed bv Dhirenda Mishra, J: This is claimants' appsa! against the award dated 3-11-2006 passed in Claim Case No.14/05 bythe Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Bilaspur. Roshan,'- (henceforth "the Tribunal") for enhancement of compensation. Claimant No.1 is mother & No.2 is brother of deceased namely Anurag Peters, aged about 18 years, who died on 5.1.2005 as a result of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 31.12.2004. 2. Learned counse! for the appellants submits that the tribunal even after assessing the age of deceased as 16-18 years and apptying the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, has deducted 1/3 amount from the notionai income and accordingly assessed the compensation, which is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manju Devi and another Versus Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 {SC). 3. We have heard tearned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. 4. The tribuna! after considering the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 amount, which the deceased would have incurred for himself, has assessed the compensation on the basis of dependency Rs.10,000/-per annum. The judgment cited by learned counset for the appeltants also mentions that the award of compensation has to be made by appiying muitiplier method, as given in Scheduie-!! ofSection 163 (A) ofthe Motor Vehictes Act. From perusai of the above Schedule, it is evident that deduction of 1/3 amount is required to.be made from the earning capacity of the deceased. The daims tribunal applying the method described in the Scheduls has assessed the compensation and in our considered opinion the same is strictly in accordance with the !aw. 7. !n the resuit, the^appea! being devoid of substance is dismissed in limine. Sd/- ! / ' Sd/- YK.Shrivastava Dhirendra Mishra Judge i Judge