HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON9BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS N.K. AGARWAL, J. INNIN^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS JVIisc. Appeal iC} No. 570 of 2008 1. Smt. Radha Bai, , w/o tate Balrampurseth, aged about 40 years. 2. Bedprakash S/o. Balrampurseth, agedabout18years. 3. Minor Dinesh Kumar S/o. Balrampurseth, aged about 11 years, through its natural guardian mother Smt. Radha Bai W/o. Balrampurseth, 4. Devsingh, S/o. Satyanand Sahu, aged about 85 years, All of residents village Jaimura, Tahsil & P.S. Wiarsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) V^rsys 1. Jaipat Patel, S/o Chandu Patel aged about 30 years, occupation Driver R/o. Viilage Dehjari, P.S. & Tahsil. Kharsiya, District RaiQarh 2. Mayaram Patel, S/o. Chakradhar Patei, aged about 45 years, occupation - Vehicle owner, R/o. Viflage Dehjari, P.S. & Tahsl! Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, jn front of Gopi Talkies, Raigarh, Dfetrict Raigarh (C.G.) MEM6 OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEH1CLEACT^0188^ Present: Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appeilants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counseS for respondent No.3. ORDER (7tn September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard OTI M.C.P. No.2241/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. M.C.P. No. 2241/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 20 days in fjling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No.109/2004. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.34,16,500/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor chlldren and father of deceased Balrampurseth by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident pn 08.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of a^'.J'7 ^' Rs.6,01,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,329/- per month though the gross-salary of the deceased was Rs.4,819/- per month; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,01 ,000/- only. 8. The claimants pleaded and proved that the gross-satary of the deceased was Rs.4,819/- per month, whereas the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,329/- per month after deducting the contributions made by the deceased towards GPF, GIS and re-payment of advance. The Tribunal certainly has erred in excluding the amount deducted towards GPF, GIS and repayment of advance while assessing the income of the deceased. The same, however, would not result in any substantial gain to the appellant as the Tribunal has selected the higher muitiplier of 16 on the basis of the age of the widow of the deceased, whereas the correct multiplier on the basis ofthe age of the deceased in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be 14 only. Thus, even if the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,819/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.3,200/- per month and multjplier of 14 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra) is applied the compensation would work out to Rs.5,62,600/- inclusive of the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads which is less than the amount of Rs.6,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge nimmi