^.^ y<\ OF AT C.J. J. ADoeiiants Ciaimants MACMQ.80/2007 1 Masatram Baret, S/o Darsuram, Aged about 55 years 2 Smt Laxmi Baret, W/o Masatram 3 Ku. SayatJ Baret, D/o Masatram Baret All R/o KaJml Mudapar, Bugalow Yard, Raiivvay Colony, Bilaspur, Tehsll & Dlstrict Biiaspur (CG) i 1 Anthony Ram, S/o Panduram, Aged about 35 years, R/o Pathaigaon, Post Offlce Pathaigaon, District Jashpur Driver - Rajdhani Traveis, Ambikapur (CG15/A - 1885) Through its owner Mohamrpad Noor Hasan, S/o Abdul Hasan• 2 Mohammad Noor Hasan, S/o Abdul Hasan, R/o Rajdhani Travefs, Kharsiy'a Road, Raigarh, District Ralgarh (CG) Owner ofvehicle No.CG 15/A-1885. 3 United indla insurance JCompany, Branch Bilaspur, Tehsi! & Dlstrict Bilaspur (CG) 173 ofthe MQtor Present : Shri SRJ Jalswai, counsei for the appeiiants None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. (21st Aisgisst, 2 The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Gypta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No.107/2006, a petition for condonation of delay in fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of' learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken jn the appilcation, MCP No. 107/2006 is ailowed and the delay of one day in fiiing the Js hereby condoned. 3) Shri SRJ Jaiswai, learned counse! for the appeliants js heard on admission. 4) The appejlants / daimants are seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short, 'the Tribunai'), vide award 13.07.2006, in Clalm Case. No.68/2005. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.21,25,000/- claimed by the aDpeilants/ciaimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Laxmi Narayan Baret by filing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act tbr his death in the motor accident on 15.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 7% per annum from the of fillng of the ciaim petitlon tili the date of actual payment. 6) Shri SRJ Jaiswal, iearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in not acceptlng the clalmants' evldence about the Jncome of the \ <. 't ^>—^ deceased; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of fhe deceased towards his personai expenses; In selecting iower multlpiier of 8; and In awarding Eow compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- on!y. 7) True, the clalmants pleaded that deceased Laxml Narayan Baret was aaed about 21 years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as bus conductor, but the evidence ied In that behajf was not of ciinching nature. In this of evidence, the Tribunal was !eft with no oth.er option, but to the income of the deceased on Its own estimate. 8) On due consideration we do not find any infirmity Jn the of the income of the deceased by the Tribuna! at Rs.3,000/- per month. 9) The TribunaJ has been quite iiberai in deducting the usuai 1/3rd towards ths person.al expenses of the deceased, though the deduction in that behaif couid have been to ths extent of 50% of the income of the as the deceased on the of the accident vvas un-mamed and his marriage, his contribution to the would have reduced substantialjy. 10) The muitlplier of 8 seiected by the Tribunal aiso cannot be found fauEt v/ith as father of the deceased i.e. ciaimant No.1 Masatram about 65 years, whereas claimant No.2 Srnt Laxmi mother ofthe deceased was aged about SO years on the date of the accident. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the »^-^|j \^Jrt ^^s'y^' assessment of the income cf the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal, filed by the appellants / ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- CI»iefJustice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge mw