AT SHI NA i fC)No. 2; ,'''.annii"^r><''is ^J~1^/frrfJEilw'ttlf 1<.^ Mamta Thakur, D/o. Late Durgaram Thakur, aged about 18 years, R/o. F/25, C.G. Vldyut Mandai Colony, Khedamara, Distt. Durg Present Address: Viilage and Latabod, Police Station Baiod, Tahsi iistrict Durg (CG). .Dontient; (Nun-aDDiicants) Bharatram Sahu, S/o. Dashrath Sahu.'R/o. E/34, C.G. Vidyut Mandal Colony, Khedamara, Tahsi! and r\'t^i.i r\t^s~ /n-f^'\ uisii. uurg ^i-!;. (Driver of Vehicle No.C.G.07 Z.C. 2907). C.G. State EIectrici.ty Board, Bhi!ai-3, ice Station Bhilai 3, Distt. Durc (CG). (Owner of vehide No. C.G..07-Z.C. 2907) Thp Rr??nrl:h M?snsn?ar tr" ^f £^twti i\/.i3 l^^uti l^d^ ^rft ^ -h insurancs uornpany /iynaaar, Durg (CG). Limitsu, ?r5^nrltii?ni rsf ^n.n'Es^lE 11^ 'fT?£ r^f f'hsa ^n?n,r VE hgrt'lgs<s ArE? ?E SSES !s1iui^££6 'vJfi £a.iy'IM"^:s%U 'acyi'^r £fF vff fU'a tLES E^S: i¥i'iUi^UlE !ijf flSE iE^»E^?<Si fW^'^.c priacs^nf • Rnrl _||f<=inrl;-^ f^iinf^ nni ^n%pl fnr rh(s %nnQ|| i i 't/^^fe E^ , ^/i ii fc ^iL^/i E^-ifi Ci '''^-fuEfr^tad^ '^^\^^l Ei^^£ E^/t i"fl i1^' St|i^^1^'aFGtE S^* 15th M. ^t--.. "^.—.- The followina order of the Court was sassed t Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counse! for the appeilant is heard on admission. 2) Aps l^ CSOj 6-hwt ^/^trf the compensation awardsd by the 9 Additlonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.0'i .2010, passed In Claim Case No. 37 of 2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.27,65,000/- claimed by the apDellant/cIaimant, unfortunate daughter of deceased Durga Ram Thakur, bv filina a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 26.10.2006, the Tribunal av/arded a tota! sum of Rs.7,96,099/- as compensatlon along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offil'ng ofthe ciaim petition tiil the date ofactual payment. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting ths saiary beina received by the claimant on account of her compassionate appointrnent frorn the income of the deceased (A'hile assessing ths compensation; in selecting lower multipller of 11;and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 7,96,099/- only. 5) From paras 16 and 17 of the award, we gather that ciaimant Ku. Mamta Thakur was granted compassionate appointment on account of the death or her father deceasee Duma Ram Thakur in the accident. The Tribunai while assessins the incorne of the deceased and the clalmant's dependency has deducted only 1/3r° of the income of the deceased tovrfards hls )ersonsi expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have peen to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as there were on!v two'members in the family l.e. deceased and hls dauflhter claimant Mamta Thakur, dependent on the income of ^•^ LE £t**^: ^o-l; ^^/ 6) Th.at apart, we are satisfied that th.e deduction of ths salarv of the claimant from the income of the deceased made bv the 'nbunal is as per the observations made by'the Apex Court in the case of Manaaement Board vs. Kanta Aarawal rs, r8pGn6( 7) The muitipiier of 1 1 setected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Durga Ram Thakur was aged about 50 years 7 months and 7 days on ths date of the accident and recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarii another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes multlplier of 11 for the age group bstween 51 -55 years. i) 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 cteimants' dependencv by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. D: ^GT'*^. fe.^ 4. 9) The appeal filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and !s hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chardrakar Judge subbu