HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appeilants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C»No.1052 of 2009 1 Jintun Nisha Wd/o Saiyyad Kudus Ali, aged about 47 years 2 Amjad Ali D/o Late Saiyyad Kudus Ali, aged about 20 years Both R/o Jabadapara, beside river, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS 1 Shiv Singh S/o Awadhram, aged about .33 years, R/o village Bhaisabod, Police Station - Bitha District Bilaspur (CG) 2 Bahadur Singh Rajpal, aged about 48 years, s/o Harnam Singh, R/o Punjabi colony, Bilha District Bilaspur (CG) 3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur Misc AD@eal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act. Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. ORDER ith (10'"September,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. ^' fv l<a;) 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 6 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.04.2009, passed in Claim Case No.67/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate mother and younger brother of deceased Nujhat Ali, aged about 27 years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 08.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-onlump-sum basis. 5) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Nujhat Ali was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month from Akash Stores. The salary certificate (Ex.A-5) produced before the Tribunal indicated that one Ku. Sonia Chatterjee alias Nujhat Ali was being paid wages of Rs.2,660/- per month by Akash Stores, Bilaspur and in addition she was being paid monthly bonus of Rs.2,000/- by Electrolux Company. In support of the above certificate neither the proprietor of Akash Stores nor any co-employee of the deceased was examined before the Tribunal. No documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that any amount much (^) less the amount of Rs.2,000/- was being paid to the deceased as bonus by Electrolux Company. 6) In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 7) Even if we assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum which we have taken in other cases, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000/-per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased would have to be deducted towards her personal expenses, considering that only two members of the family i.e. the deceased herself and her mother claimant No.1 Jintun Nisha were dependant on the income ofthe deceased; and after the marriage of the deceased she would not have extended any support to her mother; and claimant No.2 Amjad Ali even according to the admission of claimant No.1 before the Tribunal was himself an earning member; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 13, as prescribed •bv the Apex Court in the recent dictum in the case of Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Othrs, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121, the compensation works out Rs.2,34,000/-; by adding Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,59,000/-, which is less than the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ^y'^-^ ^ •/' i ^ fi ^ <3as"^> '<•-.' ^ subbu 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby^lismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge ^-^