^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appellants/ Claimants Misc. Appeal iC) No. 606 of 2007 1 Smt Uma Bai Yadav, aged about 23 years, W/o Late Ghanshyam Yadav 2 Tulsi Ram Yadav, aged about 52 years S/o Fagua Ram Yadav 3 Smt. Rameshwari Yadav, aged about 50 years, W/o Tulsi Ram Yadav 4 Ligat Kumar, aged about 5 months, S/o Late Ghanshyam Yadav (appellant No.4 being minor on behalf of through his legal guardian mother appellant No.1 Smt. Uma Bai Yadav) All R/o Handi Para, Raipur, Police Station - Amanaka, Thasil & District - Raipur (CG) Respondents 1 Non-clajmants VERSUS Lakhminder Singh Chawla, S/o Ram Singh Chawla, R/o Lucky Tyers, Tatibandh, Raipur, District - Raipur (Driver & Owner of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04/E-2613) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisjonal Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration NO.CG-04/E-2613) Hukum Lal Sahu S/o Manglu Ram Sahu, R/o Village & Post - Kurud, Police Station - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (CG) ^ M!\ aA-" (Driver of vehicle bearing registration NO.CG-05/B-1790) Santosh Dhruv S/o Ram Dhruv, R/o Srojani Chowk, Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) (Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.CG 05/B-1790) The New Indla Insurance ,Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, RDA Building, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur District Raipur (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration No.CG 05/B-1790) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ^th (9tnSeptember,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/2007, therefore, js allowed and the delay of two '\ -. days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. .^^J^%. /€^\ 1^ 1iJ %B-T-^'A' ^ 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No.52/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.19,70,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Ghanshyam Yadav, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 14.01.2006 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident 08.01.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,46,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 17; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,46,900/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ghanshyam Yadav used to earn Rs.100/- per day as Labour, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, \ therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day, Rs.2,400/- per r^ionth and Rs.28,800/- per annum on the basis of a^ the wages paid to the contingency paid employee at the Collector's rate in the year 2006, the year of accident in the present case. 9) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.80/- per day, Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Ghanshyam Yadav was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident, whereas his parents were shown to be aged about 52 years and 50 years and his widow was aged about 23 years. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of 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. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge