DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. Appellant Respondents 6A HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 291 of 2005 KSifaI s/o Bodhan (adopted son of ’ Phalsai), caste Gond, aged about 30 years, agriculturist & r/o of village Bakalo, at present village Chandan Nagar, P.S. Premnagar, tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. Kulanram s/o Sunnaram, caste Gond, age 4'5“years, occupation Driver, r/o village Rewapur, P.S. Darima, tahsil Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. Girja Prasad Shukla s/o Shivprasad Shukla, aged about 38 years, occupation Business (owner) r/o Banaras Road, Ambikapur, distric Surguja C.G. / Jagjeet Singh Arora s/o Shri G.P. Shukla, Bramhapara, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. FORMAL :— Dhaneshri w/o RameShar caste gond, r/o village Namana, P.S. 'Premnagar, district Surguja C.G. Jairam s/o Daua, caste Gond, aged about 35years, r/o viliage Hariharpur, P.S., Premnagar, district Surguja C.G. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2 M.A. No. 291 of2005 7. Dead. 7A Saman Sai s/o late Jodhan, rlo village Bakalo, P.S. Prem Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G; Somaru slo Badal, caste Gond, aged about 55 years. 9. Jageshar s/o Badal, ca‘ste Gongl, aged about 3O years. 10 Harisingh s/o Thakur, caste Gond, aged about 19 years. 11 Narayan s/o Somarsai, caste Gond, Aa’g‘ed about 35 years. 12 Barsati d/o Somarsai, caste Gond aged about 25 years. Resp. No. 9 & 10 present address village Chandan Nagar. resp. No.7,8, 11 & 12 r/o village Bakalo, all P.S. Prem Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, district Sarguja C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 I Present: Shri N.K. Mehta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri J.A. Lohanj. coUnsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.7A and 8. ORDER (12“ August, 2011) The following order r-of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Sifal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4t“ Additional Motor Accident Claims t //// \ \ " \ \ \ \ \ 3 M.A. No. 291 of2005 Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.1 1 .2004, passed in Claim Case No.22/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000l— ciaimed‘by the appellant/ claimant, adopted son of deceased Phuisai by niing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.01.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,13,500/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment: . I ' 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Phuisai died on account of the injuries jl sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.01 .2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MP-27/8900; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date ofvthe accident was insured with the United lndia Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained tinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/— per‘month and Rs.12,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3’d of Rs.12,000/— towards the personal expenses of the JA/ l 4 M.A. No. 291 of2005 deceased, the claimant’s dependency was assessed at Rs.8,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.8,000/: with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,04,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,.13,500/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of deceased Phulsai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,13,500/— @ 6% per annum from thedate of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri N.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/— per month and Rs.12,000/— ‘ per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,13,500/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,13,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.3, owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 5 M.A. N0. 291 of2005 9) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.7A and 8, supported the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 10) The claimant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1,000l— per month and Rs.12,000/— per annum as his own witness AW2 Madhusudhan Singh in para 13 of his cross- examination admitted that the deceased used to get Rs.40/— per day as Iabour in the yillage. " ‘ 11) The Tribunal has been quite iiberai in deducting only 1/3'd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as there were only two persons w dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself and the sole claimant in the case, Sifal who claimed himself to be adopted son of the deceased. 12) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that the deceased was shown to be 48 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not nnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either W 6 € M.A. N0. 291 0f2005 on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimant’s dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 14) 'The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the'compensation, therefore, is Iiable to be dismissed and is y subbu hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sdl- Sd/- r‘x X Prashant kumar Mishra Chief Justice \ Judge .