w J/ HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH CORAM: Appellants Ciaimants HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV OUPTA, C.J. MON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR StNHA, J. IWANo.24of2006 1 Smt Sukhbatl, Wd/o Tulst Ram, Aged about 32 yrs Caste - Kalar Respondents Non-applicants 2 3 4 5 6 Ku Durgesh, D/o Late Tulstram, Age about 14 yrs Caste - Kaiar Ku Jiteshwari, D/o Late Tulsiram, Age about 12 yrs Caste - Kalar Ku Urmila D/o Late Tulsiram, Age about 9 yrs Caste- Kalar Suryakant S/o Late Tutsiram; Age about 6 yrs Caste - Kalar Kumar S/b Late Tulsirm, Age about 3 yrs Caste Kalar All residents of vlllage Imlipara Gudum, PS Durgkondai, Tah Bhanupratappur, Distt Kanker (CG) , All minor Childres as !ega! representative her mother Smt Sukhbati VERSUS Manoj Kumar Tiwari, S/o Bhisam prasad Tiwari, age 32 yrs, R/o village sutkharPS Bhanupratappur, Distt Kanker CG Purshottam, S/o Amit Uike, age 23 years R/o village Kanhargaon, PS Bhanupratappur, Distt Kanker (CG) National Insurance Co.Ltd Central Bank Near RMS Office Jagadalpur Kanker CG Misc Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicle Act. 1988 ^€7k^ ^y ^—-^,-'^ ^\ 's*,. .^ ..^ "">. %i'^4y '^•SsS!^" Present : Shri SRJ Jaiswal, counselfortheappetlants. Shri JA Lohanl, counsel for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (3rd July;2Q09) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, l^nker (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 31.08.2005 passed In Claim Case No.41/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,37,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate wldow and mtnor children of deceased Tulsi Ram by filing a claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for his death in the motor accident on 14.01.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,20,000/- as compensatton along with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri SRJ Jaiswal, learned counsei for the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,20,400/- only. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand submitted that the compensatlon of Rs.5,20,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side and as such, no enhancement of the compensation is warranted in this appeal. ^ 5) Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle atso supported the award. 6) The claimants pleaded that deceased Tulsi Ram used to earn Rs.6,500/- per month, whereas the satary certificate (Ex.P/5) produced by the claimants before the Trlbunal was to the effect that the deceased was getting Rs.6,105/- as salary. The Tribunal therefore, assessed the income of.the dweased at Rs.6,105/- per month. As the income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal on the basts of the salary certlficate adduced in evidence by the claimants themselves, we do not find any Inflrmity In the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 7) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,070/- per month and Rs.48,8^)/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 8) The multiptier of 1 O selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Tulsiram was aged about 45 years cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Kalpana and others reported tn 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate forthe deceased, aged about 33 years in the said case. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the --^^a^^, \.'"V.- %-....,;-,-;-?7 4 assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multlplier setected. 10) The appeal, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. padma Sd/- Ouef Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge