. \\\v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ) ((. 1 ^:: -fe> CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. RESPONDENTS Non- appilcants M.A.IONo. 1057 of 2008 1. Matiya Devi, W/o Late Satrughan Yadav aged 25 years. 2. , Sonphi Devi, W/o Late Balgovind Prasad Yadav, aged 62 years. 3. Renukumari, D/o Late Satrughan Yadav, aged about 14 years 4. ShaiieshKumar, S/o Late Satrughan Yadav, aged about 12 years 5. Shailendra Kumar, S/o Late Satrughan Yadav, aged about 8 years 6. Surendra Kumar, S/o Satrughan Yadav, aged about 5 years 7. Puja Kumar, D/o Late Satrughan Yadav, aged about 3 years Al! are R/o Shankar Nagar Durg, Dewangan's House, Near by Top Tailor, PS Mohan Nagar, Tah & Distt Durg (CG) Appeiiant No.3 to 7 are minor through natural guardian mother Appetlant No.1 (Matiya Devi) Versus 1. Narad Ram Yadav, S/o Jagdish Yadav, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Thengabhat, Police Station Berla, District Durg (CG) Present address - C/o Vishnu Patel village Jevara house P.S. Jevara Sirsa Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) c. 2. Mannula! Sinha, Son of Kartikram, aged 50 years, resident of Arya Nagar Kohka Bhilai Tah. & District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Maiviyanagar, Durg, Tahsil & District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) IViisceilaneous Appea! U/S 173 ofthe iVIotor Vehictes Act. 1988 Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsei for the appeilants.. ORDER (7th August, 2008) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counse! for the appellants is heard on I.A. No. 01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the de!ay in fjling the appeaE. 3. I.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the deiay in filing the appeai Is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, tearned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 5. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the Twelfth Additionai Motor Accident ^"'T^"^-' ^.i^si '^t '% i // '^^^^ ^ ^ '<J Cfaims Tribunal, Durg, vlde award dated 04-02-2008, passed in CiaimCaseNo.104/2007. 6. The claimants, unfortunate widow, mother and children of deceased Satrughan Yadav, ciaimed compensatjon of Rs.1,08,55,000/- by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident when on 17-02-2007 he was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-07ZC/2041, resuiting in muitiple serious injuries to deceased Satrughan Yadav, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment jn the hospital. The clajmants further pleaded that deceased Satrughan Yadav used to earn Rs.1,50,000/- per month by buying and selling cattte. 7. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck did not contest the clalm and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunai. The insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased himseif was responsible for the accident; the Truck was being ptied in breach of the policy conditions; and the driver of the Truck was not hoiding a valid driving licence. 8. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the evldence led by the parties held that deceased Satrughan Yaday died on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17-02-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicEe Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance .^"•" ./i.' "'•'-«'•:;•'*....,-^.:'^ .^. ' .;-. v^ 'V ^' ^ ', Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.1,666/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,434/- per month. By muitiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.6,40,128/-. By awarding further sum under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.6,75,128/- as compensation to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum. 10. Shri JEtendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing his incQme at Rs.5,000/- per month only; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.6,75,128/- onty to the claimants. 11. True, the cfaimants pieaded that deceased Satrughan Yadav used to eam Rs.1,50,000/- per rnonth by buying and seiling cattle, but no cogent and reliable evidence was led in that behalf. AW1 Matiya Devi, widow of deceased Satrughan Yadav, in her deposition before the Tribuna! stated that her husband Satrughan Yadav used to sarn Rs.1,50,000/- per month. !n para 16 of her deposition, she admitted that her husband Satrughan Yadav neither filed any income-tax return nor paid any income-tax on his income. The Tribuna! considering that the deceased was neither paying any income-tax nor filing any income-tax return and the fact that the ciaimants did not examine any buyer or seiler to establish •^ •:^^ \ ^-^ iw. the extent of the said business of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. 12. Considering the nature of the evidence !ed by the clalmants for estabiishing the income of the deceased, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.5,000/- per month. 13. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 14. The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Satrughan Yadavwas aged about 38 years, is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New Sndia Assursnce Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and Others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825 where the Apex Court found the multiplier of 13 to be appropriate where the age of the deceased was 33 years. 15. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multipiier selected. 16. The appeai, therefore, is Siabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha judge subbu