w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C.J. & I HON BLE SHRI RL JHANWAR J Misc Appeal No.612/2006 1. Gurjit Kaur, aged about 29 years wife of late Avtar Singh‘ 2. Minor, Harpreet Kaur, aged about 11 years, daughter of late Avtar Singh Minot, Simran Kaur, aged about 7 years, daughter of late AWar Singh Appellants No.1 & 2 through their natural guardian mother Gurjit Kaur All residents of EWS 108, Maharana Prata’p Nagar, Korba, District — Korba(CG) Appellants (Claimants) Versus Umesh Kumar son of Lochan Prasad Yadav 2. Lochan Prasad Yadav, son of Udal Prasad Yadav Both are residents of Sector 1 Revenue 2 — A, Bhiiai Powar Hosue Police Station Purani Bhilai, District — Durg (CG) National insurance Co.Ltd Through Branch Manager Branch Offce Geel Complex Gurudwara ke paas Station Road District Durg (CG) Sardar Smgara Singh, son of Unknown, resident of Wlage —- Uchhi Sadal Tehsil — Amloh,«Dlstrict — Patiala (Punjab) Respondents Non-claimants Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for the appellants. f Nor‘e for respondents No 1 2 & 4 ’ Shn Anand Gupta counsel for respondent No 3 g Present ' rw»: ‘ “l,‘ /~ (7m July, 2059) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No.2281/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in fliing ‘the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in'fillng the appeal. 3) MCP No.2281/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in tiling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded bysthe Additional MotOr Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 30.03.2006 passed in Claim Case No.240/2003 to 6) As against the compensation of Rs.1 ,18,87,000l- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Avtar Singh by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 09.1 1 .2003, the TribUnal awarded a total sum of Rs.13,97,7007-«as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 7)’ “Shri *Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants \ vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the, f: . \ x y4, claimants’ evidence about the income bf the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,20,000/-~ pet annum cniy; and in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.13,97,700/- only. 8) True the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Avtar Singh used \/ to earn rupees 60-70 thousand per month; but the evidence led in that behalf was not of .ciinohingfnature. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no otherroption but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 9) The claimants‘ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 10) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Avtar Singh was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in, the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Kalpana and others reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceased aged about 33 years in the said case. 11) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement ofé’i’the compensation either on account \of the assessment of the income “of the deceased or the claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal, or the multiplier selected.