KT~ C.J. & J. tCl Ciaimants <. 1. Smt. Neerabai, Wd/o Ganeshram Sahu, 45 years 2. Ku. Yashoda; D/o Lats Ganeshram Sahu,aged 16 years Appeliant No.2 is minor through naturai guardian mother Smt. Neerabai, Wd/o Ganeshram Sahu, residen| of viiiage Kosmarra, Tehsii Kurud^istrict Dhamtari (CG) Driver Qwner 1. Sadiram Sahu, son of Tiharuram Sahu, aged 38 years, resident of Lalbagh, Gaii No.3, Rajnandgaon, Tehsii and District Rajnandgaon (CG) Kishore Kurnar, Son of Bhagwandas Khatri, aged 37 years, R/o Lalbagh, Gall N o.3, "Rajnandgaon, Tehsii & District Rajanandgaon (CG) Present Address : Sindhi Colony, Statlon Road, Durg, Tehsil and Distric-t Durg (CG) Manager, Nationai insurance Company Limited, Divisiona!.^ Office, Mobin Maha!, GE Road, Raipur, Tehsij & District Ralpur (CG) Ni.se. 173 ofthe NototVeh|cles_Act Present: SSiri S.S. Agra.wai, counsei for the appeiiants. ^- -^.. .^••s:^w""'c:^. ,<:^'^ ......J;^. ''•^' {^sgs^ ^ ^ '^•^/ i%^£^' b c (21st February, 2011) The foiSowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ. Shri S.S. Agarwal, iearned counsel for the appeiiants js heard on I.A. No.01/2011, an appllcation for condonation of the delay In fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of tpe submissions of iearned counsei for the appe!!ants and the grounds taken In the appiication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiav'-in fiiing the appeal. 3) iA No.01/2011, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay of one day in fiijng the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri S.S. Agawai, learned counsei for the appeliants is heard on admlsslon. 5) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth,AdditionaI Motor Accident Claims Tnbunai; Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') yide award dated 31.08.2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.09/2010. 6). As against the compensatlon of Rs.8,50,000/- claimed by the appeiiants/ daimants, unfortunate widow and daughter of .'. deceased Ganeshram Sahu by fillng a ciaim petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.10.2009, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along vvith interest @ 7.5% per ~.^~ / ^ 1 •"•g3^: \^y annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petrtion tiii the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri S.S. Agrawai, iearned counse! for the appeilants vehementjy argued that the Tribunai has erred jn awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,,50,000/- only. 8) True, the ciairnants pleaded that deceased Ganeshram Sahu used to earn Rs.100-150/- per day, the evldenc-e led in that behalf before the Tribunal was not of oiinching nature. We, therefore, do not flnd anyfault in the assessment ofthe income of the dec-eased by the Tribuna! at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/-per annum. ^ 9) The clalmants' dependency a!so has been rightly assessed by the Tribunaj by deducting the usua! 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards hls personai expenses. 10) The muitipiier of 5 seiected by the Tribuna! aiso cannot be found fauit with In view of the fact that deceased Ganeshram Sahu in his postmortem report was shown to be 65 years of age and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of and Others Versus Transport Corooration reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes muitiplier of5 for the age group above 65 years. .11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any sco'pe for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunai. -ffM—'—"-— ^^-:-^, "^ .., 12) The appeal fiied by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice \ Sd/- R.^. Chandrakar Judge nimmi .^-^;