A. ^-f\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNtL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 581/2009 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. 2. 3 4 5 RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Versus 1. 2. 3. Smt Kiran Netam, widow of Late Jeevan Netam,aged 35 years Smt Kachra, widow of Late Rewaram, aged 62 years Kum. Pragya, daughter of Late Jeevan Netam, aged 11 years Kum. Varsha, daughter of Late Jeevan Netam, aged 9 years Bhavesh, son of Late Jeevan Netam, aged 7 years No.3, 4 & 5 are minors through their natural guardian mother Smt. Kiran Netam, widow of Late Jeevan Netam. All residents of Village Nipani, PS & Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) Netram Sahu, resident of Village Kodiya, PS & Tehsil Durg, District Durg (CG) (Driver of truck No. CG07-ZC- 1301) Jeevanlal, son of Late BL Suryavanshj, aged 42 years, resident of Quarter No.6-D, Street No.5, Sector - 4, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) (Owner of Truck No.CG 07 ZC-1301) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through the Divisional Manager, Branch Power House Bhilai, District Durg (CG) (Insurer of Truck No.CG 07-ZC-1301) ^ MISC. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Indra Sen Sahu, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (17th April, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Indra Sen Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2). The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 31.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.25/2008. 3). As against the compensation of Rs.13,85,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, mother and minorchildren of deceased Jeevan Netam by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 07.03.2008 when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck/Dumper bearing Registration No.CG07ZC/1301, resulting in his instantaneous death on the sport itself, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,19,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4). Shri Indra Sen Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting 1 1 the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month; and in awardlng low compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- only. 5). True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jeevan Netam used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Supervisor with a Contractor and from his cycle-shop, but the evidence led in that behalf could notestablish his income to the extent of Rs.8,000/-. The Contractor examined by the claimants, Aw-2 Jahid Ahmed Khan, stated that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was being paid by him to deceased Jeevan Netam. 6). !n this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 7). The Tribunal has rightly assessed the claimants' dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 8). The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that deceased Jeevan Netam was aged about 40 years and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825. 9). We, therefore, 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 claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. ^ 10). The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu ^ F