ll^l^ COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appellants Respondents Misc. Aopeal (C) No. 716 of 2010 1 Smt Dan Bai widow of Late Ramnath, aged 25 years 2 Roshan Lal Sahu, aged 1 3 years, son of Late Ramnath 3 Ku Saroj, aged 11 years, Son of Late Ramnath 4 Liiadhar, aged 2 years and 6 months, Son of Late Ramnath 5 Hiru Ram Son of Late Keju Ram, aged 65 years 6 Smt Popi Bai wife of Hiru Ram, aged 60 years Appellant No.2 to 4 are minor through their mother Smt Dan Bai appellant No.1. All are R/o Viilage Paiari, PS Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (CG) Versus 1. Maneshwar, son of Shobhit Ram Sahu, aged 28 years R/o Rajakhujji, PS Dondergaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Shiv Kumar Sahu, Son of SR Sahu, R/o Rajakhujji, P.S. Dondergaon, Rajnandgaon (CG) 3. The Orienta! insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Miscellaneous appeal ynder Section 173 of the Motor VehlcSes Act. 1988 '^^s^' Present: Shri R.S. Patel and Shri S.L. Chandra, learned counsei for the appellants. ORDER (22nd Jugy, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an app!ication for condonation of the deiay in filing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and .the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing siifficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is ailowed and the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appeliants are heard on admission. 5) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Addltiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ba!od,District Durg (for short ithe Tribunai') vide award dated 22-02-2010, passed in Claim Case No.10/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- claimed by the appeilants/ciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiidren and parents of deceased Ramnath Sahu by filjng a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accldent on 27-10-2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,49,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramnath Sahu used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as driver and was aiso getting Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance, the evidence led in that behalf was not of ciinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants' dependency also has been rightiy assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usua! 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personat expenses. 10) As the Tribunai has seiected the muitiplier of 18 which i? the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act, the appellants cannot have any legitimate grievance in that behalf. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we 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 ^^•i^. deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplierselected; 12) The appeal TSIed by the^^^^^^^ a enhancement of the co !: •' ' '•1 ' ' ' '. :: \ • • • •• •. .' - . "~. / ' • dismissedanclisherebydismissedsummarify. Sd/- ChiefJustice njmmt Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge s^