f^"%> "%. i' ^ ' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS RESPQNDENTS M.A.(CtNo.76of2008 1. Leelavati Bai, Wd/o Balla @ Balram Sahu, aged about 29 years, 2. Dikesh, S/o Late Balram Sahu, aged about12years, 3. Ku. Prabha, D/o Late Balram Sahu, agedabout10years. 4; Suraj, S/o Late Balram Sahu, aged about 06 years, 5. Jhadiram, S/o Late Ramadhin Sahu, aged about 55 years. 6. Yashoda Bai, W/o Jhadiram Sahu,aged about 50 years Appellant No.2 to 4 minors, through natural guardian mother Leelavati Bai, Wd/o Balla @ Balram Sahu. All R/o Village Bhatgaon, P.S. & Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.6.) Versus 1. Santosh Kumar, S/o Aghanuram Aadlle, aged about 32 years, Driver of Auto Delivery NO.C.G.-10-C/0705, R/o Village Lingiyadih, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Anukul Kumar, S/o R.K. Sinha, aged about 33 years, Owner of Auto Delivery NO.C.G.-10-C/0705, R/o E.W.S.35, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Ifko Tokiyo General tnsurance Company Limited, Branch office, Third Floor, Lalganga, Shopping Mal, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal U/S 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. 1888 "—"I .,^A^>'5%> ff ^ ." '^ w •<fcSi»—s^ ;j •^ ^.y.^f' "%.jzy ^-f Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, teamed counsel for the appellants. ORDER (29th September, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The Tribunal's records perused. 3. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 22-12-2007, passed in Claim Case No. 68^007. 4. As against the compensation of Rs.44,35,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor chitdren and parente of deceased Balla @ Balram Sahu by fitlng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 18-07-2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,25,500/- as compensation along witttinterest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, teamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in ass^slng the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month only; in setecting the lower multiplier of 13 only; and In awarding tow compensation of Rs.4,25,500/-only. 6. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Balla @ Balram Sahu used to earn Rs.300-400/- per day but the evidence le<J in that behatf was not of ctinching nature. The ^ s \. Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased art Rs.4,000/- per month on its own estimate. 7. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the evidence led by the claimants before the Tribunal in that behalf, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunalat Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- perannum. 8. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.32,000/- by deducting the usual 1/3"' of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 9. The multiplier of 13, selected by the Tribunal considering that the d«%asedwas aged about 33 yeare on the date of tte accident cannot be found fault with, in view of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the Apex Court found the multlplier of 13 to be appropriate for the deceased who was aged about 33 years. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat either on account of the assessment o( the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11. The appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice SA/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^^tw-