HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B. Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J,J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1 M.A.(C)No.919of2008 1 Geeta Bai (Amrit), Wd/o. Laxman Dewangan, aged about21 years. 2 Ku. Ratna Dewangan, aged about 2 years, D/o. Late Laxman Dewangan Minor through natural guardian mother Geeta Bai, Wd/o. Laxman Dewangan, Both R/o Mahamaipara Aarang, P.S. & Tahsil Aarang, District' Raipur (C.G.) Versus Balram Chandrakar, S/o Firanta Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Girra, P.S. Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Durga Kerian London Road, Balodabazar, P.S. Baloda - Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur P.N. 450306/31/03/01052 4 Vinod Goswami, S/o not known, aged about 28 years, R/o Mahamayapara, Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 Kriparam, S/o not known Dewangan, aged about 55 years. 6 Mantora Bai, W/o Kriparam, aged about 48 years. No. 5 & 6 both R/o Mahamaipara, Aarang, P.S. & Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) IVIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHJCLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the appellants. 1 M.A.(C)No. 919/2008 \ ORAL ORDER (11.07.2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinjia, J. I.A. No.01: Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The office report shows that the appeal is barred by 124 days of limitation. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal has been duly explained by the appellants and the same deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. The claimants namely Geeta Bai and Ku. Ratna, unfortunate widow and daughter of the deceased- Laxman Dewangan, have filed this appeal under Section 173 pf the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 264/2006. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased- Laxman Dewangan, who died in motor accident when his Jeep bearing registration No. CG-04 2A-2091 was dashed by the offending Truck No. CG-04 G-3904, which was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver namely Jhaluram Chandrakar. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as he was driver in Jeep. So far as the evidence part is concerned, no evidence to this effect was led by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as the wife ofthe deceased namely Geeta Bai (AW-1) deposed that she does not know -gs to what.was the income of the deceased. ln these circumstances, 1..--' ,^u M.A.(C)No. 919/2008 vatli .''» the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased in sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- per month was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and ultimately the monthly dependency was assessed in sum of Rs.1,500/- and the annual dependency is in sum of Rs.18,000/-. By applying multiplier of 17 to the annual dependency of Rs. 18.000/- the loss of dependency was assessed in sum of Rs.3,06,000/-. By adding Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- each on account of funeral expenses as also loss of estate, the total amount of compensation was assessed in sum of Rs.3,15.000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum on the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed. We have perused the records of the appeal. So far as the income is concerned, as stated above, the income was pleaded to be Rs.3,000/- but no evidence to this effect was led by the claimants and in that situation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/-, as it was established on records that the deceased was a Jeep driver on the date of incident. We do not find any fault in such assessment of the income made by the Tribunal, particularly in the circumstance when no direct and clinching evidence was led in this regard by the claimants. No other point was raised before us in the appeal. We do not find any force in appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge \ 1