OF AT QUPTA, CJ. & • HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. (Cl No. 964 of 2010 CIalmants Driver Owner Mother Smt Shakuntaia Singh, W/o Late Joginder Slngh, aged about 40 years,. Residence of Poiice Line, Ralpur, Tahsli & Dlstrict Ralpur (CG) Devwrat Singh, S/o Late Joginder Singh, aged about 17 yrs, Residence of PoSice Line, Raipur, Tahsil & District Ralpur (CG) Sidharth Singh; S/o Late Joginder Singh, aged about 15 yrs, Residence of Poiice Line Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Appellant No.2 & 3 are minor, under guardian mother Shakuntaia Singh appeiiant No.1 VERSUS Mama @ Pyara Singh, S/o Inder SIngh, Occupation Truck Driver, Residence at Bhanpuri, Ring Road No.2 Transport Company Raipur, Tahsii& DistrictRaipur (C.G.) (Driver of offending Truck) Smt. Jasyinder Kaur W/o Mama @ Pyara Slngh, at Bhanpuri, Ring Road No.2 Transport Company Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of offending Truck) Smt. Shama Kaur VA//O iate Surjlt Slngh, aged about 65 years, residence at Baghbahra, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) "^^3^:: -f-^- Father 4. Surjit Singh S/o G.R. Slngh aged about 65 years, R/o at Baghbahra, Tahsii & Djstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) Insurer 5. New india Insurance Company Limited, Branch No.1, through Divisjonaj Manager, Divisionai Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jali Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri A.L. Slngrauj, !earned counsel for the appeljants. »nd (22na September, 2010) The tbjjowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri A.L. Singraui, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on !.A. No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation of the deiay in fiijng the appea!. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the appltoatjon, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing suffjcient cause for the deiay in fiJing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is ailowed and the delay in filing the appeaJ is hereby condoned. 4) Shri A.L. Slngrauf; learned counsel for the appeiiants is heard on aclmlssion. .^^-^s,^^ .f'!.^\ f •.' il ::! t ^) 5) The appeiiants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ciajms Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.02.2010, passed in Ciaim Case No. 05 of 2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.92,00,000/- ctaimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate widow and sons of deceased Jogender Singh, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.09.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,05;600/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition. 7) Shri A.L. Singraui, tearned counse! for the appeJIants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.10,05,600/- only. 8) The appeljants/ claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.9,525./- per month as the salary certificate (E.x.P/7) produced by the cfaimants before the Tribunal sstablished the income of the deceased to that extent only. 9) The ciaimants' dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunai by deducting the usuai 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personaj expenses. 10) The muftipiier of 13 selected by the Tribunai cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that deceased Jogender Slngh according to his date of bjrth recorded in the service records was 46 years of age on the date of the accident and the recent dictum of the A.pex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhl Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2QQ9) 6 SCC 121; prescribes the muitipiier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 11) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under other heads which also appears to be just and proper. 12) For the foregosng reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplier selectad. 13) The appea! fiied by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmlssed and is hereby dismissed summaril^_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge njmmi