COURT OF CHHATT5SGARH AT B8LASPUR DJVISSON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR3 SUNJL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.1230 of 2008 APPELLANTS CLAIIVIANTS RESPONDENTS DRiVER 1 Manish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 26 years, S/o Sataynarayan Agrawa! 2 Manoj Agrawai, aged about 24 years, S/o Sataynarayan Agravv'a! 3 Sumlt Agrawai, aged about 22 years, S/o Sataynarayan Agrawal 4 Sataynarayan Agrawai, aged about 51 years S/o iate Kemchandra Agrawal, All R/o Darri Road, Korba, C.G. Versus 1 Jagmohan Kushwaha, aged about 30 years, S/o Caud Kushwaha, R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tikrapara, ClviJ iines, Biiaspur Owner 2 Ganesh Bagmare S/o late Gopi chand Bagmare C/o M/s Gopichand Service Station Deepika Thana Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Distt Korba 3 The New Indla tnsurance Co.Ltd. through Divisional Manager TP Nagar, Korba AppeaE under Sectlon 173 of IVEotor Vehicles Act 1988 Present: Shri Punit Ruparei, iearned counsei for the appeliants. ORDER sth (11tnSepteniber,20G8) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ Shri Punit Ruparei. iearned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation of delay sn fliing the appea!. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing suffident cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeal; 3) I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Punit Ruparel, iearned counsei for the appeliants Is heard on admission. 5) This is daimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna! (FTC), Korba (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 22.09.2007, passed in Claim Case No.100/2006. 6) The ciaimants, unfortunate husband and major sons of deceased Sushila Bai, claimed compensation of Rs.57,00,000/- for her death in the motor accident on 19.10.2004 when Scorpio Jeep bearing reglstration No.C.G.-12/A-5551, in which she was travelllng was dashed by the offending vehicie Tanker bearing reglstration No. C.G.-10/A-3888, resulting in mu!tip!e serious injuries to Sushila Bai who succumbed to those injuries during the course of treatment in Appolo Hospital, Biiaspur. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Sushila Bai used to earn Rs.19,000/- per month by stitching, knitting and embroidery. ^^ 7) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it heid that Sushiia Bai dled on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 19.10.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker; as the offending vehicle Tanker on the date of the accident was Insured with the New india Insurance Co. Ltd., the Insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) The Tribunal on the basis of the income tax return (Ex.P/31) of deceased Sushila Bai assessed her income at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annua! dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,76,000/-. By awarding further sum under the other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,01,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the dste of actuai payment. 9) Shri Punit Rupare!, learned counsei for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum only; in selectlng iower muitipjier of 11; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- oniy. 10) True, the claimants pteaded that deceased Sushila Bai used to earn Rs.19,000/- per month from stitching clothes, knitting and embroidery. In support of their above piea, the claimants adduced the copies of the income tax returns of the deceased for two assessment years. In the income tax return filed before her death; the income shown was Rs.24,000/-, whereas in the income tax return flled after her death, the income shown was Rs.75,000/-. For the reasons mentioned in the impugned award, the Tribuna! preferred to rely upon the Income tax return filed before the death of deceased Sushila Bai and therefore, assessed her income at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) On due conslderation of the submlsslon of iearned counsel for the appeliants and the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the impugned award, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12) The ciaimants' dependency aiso has been rightiy assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting oniy usua! 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the age of the deceased and her husband. 14) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ~n 15) The appeal filed by the appelEants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge