HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILI‘SPUR plVISION BENCH HéN §LE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & HuN’m E aHRi SUNEL KU'V'AR 5!?vHA MESCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 273 of 2004 APPELLANT (1) Smt. Bhanmati bai Sahu, Widow CLANANT of Late Ramesbwar Prasad Occupatmn - House Wife Aged about ‘35 years (2) Kuman Mukeshwan Sahu DJO Late Ra‘1esmvar Ageu about — 15 years (3) Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Slo Late Rameshwar Prasai Aged about- 12 years. (4) Kumari Dulari Sahu, D/o Late Rameshwar Prasad, Aged about — 9 years, (5) Kumari Mira Sahu, D/o Late Rameshwar Prasad, Aged about - 6 years; appellants nos. 2 to 5 are represented hereby legal guardian mother, appeHant no.1. (6) Champi bai, W/o $ri Bahoran Sahu, Aged abeut— 58 years, (7) Bahoran Sahu, S/o Sri shobha Ram Sahu, Aged about — 62 years, Ail residents of Village —' Mathpurena’ Near Alka - Talab, Sunder Nagar, Thane - Tikrapara, Ralpur, (C.G.) ' Coram Versus 1 years R/o Bombay Garage Ring Road No 2 Tahsll & Dlstt — Ralpur (C G) (2) Krishna Biswal, S/o Srl Sadashiv Biswal, Aged about - 40 years, RESPGNDENT () Sudhakar Kumhar S/o Sn Sundar NON-AWLECANT kuma r<ur1rar Aged about CW? Occupation — Truck Owner Rfo Bombay Garage Ring RoacE No.2, ‘ Tahsi! & Disit - Raipur (6.6.) (3) The Oriental insurance Co. Limited, Through : D£visiena€ Manager, Divisiona! Office, Kachahar? Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (4) Rambhagat Agrawal Through Manish Enterphses’ H-1. Farishta Complex GE. Road: Raipur (C.G.) (5) The National Insurance Co. Divisiona! Office, Limited, Divisionai Manager, Mobin Mahal, GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Miscelianeous Aggeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 Present : Shri A.L. Singraul, iearned counsel for the appellants. None of respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Suryakant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Shri Ra; Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. ORDE R (18m November , 2008} The following order of the Court was passed by Raieev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.(C.) P. No.1080l2004, a petition for condonation of deiay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. a W e V, \a 3) M.(C.)P. No.1b80i2004, therefore is aliowed and the detay of four days in fiking the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri A.L. Singraul, iearned‘ counsel for the appeéEants is heard on admission. 5) This is olaimants’ appea! for enhancement of .the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai‘ Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 10.1 0.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.122/2002. . 6) As against the compensation of R$.18,00,000I- ciaimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of ‘ deceased Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, for his death in the motor l i accident on 18.06.2001, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.4,Q4,GOO!- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim petition, tiil the i date of actual payment. 1 7} Shri A.L.‘ Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in seiecting the lower multiplier of 10 and in awarding tow compensation of Ra.4,.04.0001— only. '8) The claimants pleaded that deceased Rameshwar Prasad Sahu used to earn Rs.5,000i- per month. The Tribunal accepted the evidence led by the claimants about the income of, the deceased and assessed his income at Rs.5,000i— per month and Rs.60,000i— per annum. As the income assessed by the Tribunai lathe same as was pleaded by the claimants, we do not find any e. Mi infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai. 9) The claimants’ dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribune! by deducting the usual 1/3“ towards the persene! expenses of the deceased. 10) Considering that deceased Rameshwar Prasad Sahu was aged about 45 years, the muitiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd‘Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 200? AC.) 825: wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceased; who was aged ~ abqut 33 years. 1t) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimant’s dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal? therefore; is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sunil‘Kumar Sinha Judge )7w/l \ l; Sd/- \ , sw- ‘ Chief Justice subbu