HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hoit'ble Slui Suail Kumar Slntia aad Hoa'ble Shri R. L. Jhaawar, JJ. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Misc. Apneal No. 1371 of 2009 1 Smt. Lata Baajare/Beyard, Wd/o Late Dr. Mahet Rani Baryare, Agcd about 35 years, 2 Khuleshwar Prasad, S/o Mahet Ram Baajare, ayd about 18 yeara, 3 Sonkeshwar, S/o Late Dr. Mahet Raui Banjare, aged about 15 years, 4 Kuuiari Chunisha, D/o Late Dr. Mahet Rain Baujare aged about 10 years, No. -3 aad 4 nunors, fhrough Natural Guardian Mother, Sint. Lata Baryare wd/o Late Dr. Mahet Rani Banjare, aged 38 years AU residence of vfflage RojhandUl, Tah and P.S. Pamgarh Dist. Janjgir ChampafCG) Versus 1. Om Prakash Sahu, S/o Sohau Lal Sahu, R/oViUage Masturi (Jondhra Road) Tah. and P.S. Masturi Dist Bilaspur (CG) 2. Pramod Kumar Nayak, S/o Shri Madaa Lal Nayak, R/o Cential liidia Motors, Jarhabhata, Tah. and District Bflaspur (CG) 3. United India Insiu-ance Conipany Limited, through Divisiooal Manager, Divisional Office, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tah. aad District Bilaspui<CG) APPEAL UBDER SECTIOU 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri A.L. Singhraul, counsel for fhe appeUaats. ORAL ORDBR (27.11.2009) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard on I.A.No. 1/2009, which is aa appUcatton for condonation ofdelay ia filing fhe appeal. According to fhe office report, ffae appeal is barred by 67 days oflixaitation. On due consideration of fhe submissions made by learaed counsel for fhe appeUants, we arc satisfied fh.at the delay has been sufficientiy explamed t>y the appeUaiits. / Accordiagly, I.A.No. 1/2003 is altowed aud fhe delay in fiUag fb.e appeal is hereby condoned. Shri Singhraul is also heard on adinission. The appeUaats/claunauts are claunin.g eiihaacement of auiount of coinpensation awarded in Claun Case No. 4/2008 by the Additional Motor Accidents Clauas Tribunaly Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 25.2.2009. The appeUants/claimahts, unfortunate widow, sons and daughter of the deceased- Mahet Ram, filed a claun petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, clamuag coiapensation of Rs.20,50,OOO/-. They pleaded fhat the deceased was workiag as a Vaidya iu viUage Rojhandih aud was eaming Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. Though the aforesaid iucoiue of the deceased was pleaded by the appellauts, but ffae evidence led in that behalf was not of clmchiag nature. The Tribunal held vide para 13 of fhe award that no docuinentaiy evidence was brought on record. to estabUsh the aforesaid incoine of fhe deceased. The Tribuiial, on the basis of its own assessinent held fh.at the deceased was eamiug Rs.3,000/- per monttl axid Rs.36,000/- per aajium. By deducting l/3rd fi-oni fh.e aforesaid aunual uicome offhe deceased towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal worked out the dependency at Rs.24,000/-. By applyuig uiultiplier of 16 to the aforesaid annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, the coinpensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awardiag further SUDI of Rs.13,000/- towards other permissible heads, a total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.3,97,000/-. The Tribunal atso awardecl interest at fhe rate of 7 % per aan.um Iroiu the date of filing of fhe claini petition tiU its reaUzation. Shri A.L.Suighraul, leamed counsel for the appeUaats argues tiiat the Tribunal erred in assessuig the low iacoine of the deceased and a lower inultiplier has been used. We gafher fixixa the records of fhe case that no cUnching evidence was brought oa record by fhe appellaats/claimarits to establish that ftie deceased was eamiag Rs.8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per inonth by working as a Vaidya in fhe viUage. In the above facts and circumstauces of fhe case, even if we '.0 for assessineut of fhe iacoine of ftie deceased on ftie basis of notional incoine of Rs. 15,000/-, -which was prescnbed in fhe year 1994 aad we have held ia many cases fhat it would be taken at Rs.36,000/- per annum. iii the year 2008, no differeace can. be ^"•^"^^ M '^-^i^' ^iT^^'' Saacs*"' \t Uw''i~a brought so far as the assessinent of mcoiue of the deceased is concemed. Moreover, it does not appear reasoiiable that a person would eam Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per monfh by working as a Vcddya, haviag no specific or technical quaUfication for the same. Thereforc, we do not find any fault iu the assessnient of ftie Tribunal that fhe deceased was eaming Rs.3000/- per month aad Rs.36,000/- per amium. So far as niultiplier is concemed, adnuttedly fhe deceased was aged about 38 years on ftie date of incident, which is clear from the postmorteiii report. Considering fhe age of fhe deceased as 38 years and ftie age of wife of the deceased as 35 years, the Tribunal has appUed multiplier of 16, which also appears to be icasoaable. For tbe foregoiag reasons, we do uot find any scope for eahaacement of tiie amouut of compensation. The appeal filed l>y fhe appeUaats/claimants is liable to be disinissed aad is accordingly dfeinissed at fhe inotion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 'Sd/- y^. iban^a1 iud^ rx.