sir IVIJSC. A.00^^1 (C. APpELLANTS 1 Dashrath Pandev about 48 CLAi^'IANTS vssrs, S/o Shfi Vsci Pr^sad Si nr :%.i»^r"-^l 2 Naveen Pandev, aaed about 2'i vears, S/o Dashrgth Pandev. ioth R/o Viiiaae Sagar, P.3., Hjrri Tah. Biiha, Djstrlct Bilaspur(C.G.) S&^S-.S 3 Sami Ulia, agsd about 45 years, £?/A o/u Shri 0111 S A ^td^En-^^./J Mess;i icsU AES Q./A nii, n;u Pratapgam, P.S. Mandhati, nisfrif:' Manrihat' (l' P '• L^'i^U Ivl IVSfii iLt? i&^E ^^j.rr.^ l1',^: Fresently R/o Ali Ahmea Transport & Company, Station Road, Champa, P.S. & Tah. Champa, District Janjair-Chami r- ^ \ ^. ^. j M/'s Rajdhani Bus Service, through Owner/Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, aged sb 32 years, S/o Shri Heera Lai Shuk!a, R/o Station Road, /^•^.^t^i-s^ n o o ~r/»i-,. /-(•Eo.^h^^^, "-^Ud.itiuo; r.o. oe i csn. ^nc^nipct iistrict Janiair-Champa'CC.G.) . ^ ^ ^"F^ ^ The National Insurance Co. Ltd: Threugh Divisfonai' Mansger, Diyisional Office Transport Nagar, Korba af Korba (C.G.) On behaif Dlvisiona! Manager, Office at Taha Compiex, Vyapar Vihar road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tah. & Dlstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL 173 OF T ACT,_1_98S ^r£asisr,r • 'issei'i. . oshri Amiyakant Tiwari, iearned counsel for the Shri B.N. Nande, iearned counsei for respondent No.3. The' foliowiny order of the Court was passed by v Gupfa, C. Learned counsei forthe parties are heard on i.A.No.01/2009, an appiicatlon for condonation ofthe delay'In fliing the appeai. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of ieamed counsel for the parties and the arounds taken In the applicatjon, v/e ars satisfied that the aDDeiiants have succeeded in showina sufficient cause fcr the delay in flling the appeai. 3. E.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is ailowed and the de'ay in filing the appeal Is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, iearned counse! for the appeiiants is heard on admission. l ne apDesi ir^ ?;es?ak'inn pnh??nrl^m^nf nf t?" .1 W ^J\df^rfI\iS il^ -^<i I; !l*=4i i^a^Wi ! i^d'3 ih 'W i ^3 compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award 10.09.2008 in Claim Case No.75/2008. 6. As aaainst the comDensation of Rs.7,28.000/- ciaimed bv the ippeilants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and son of deceased iarqjini @ Saroj Pandey by filing a claim peiition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accident on 27,09.2007, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.3,27.000/- ..gi-X"r;3^.,'^.?^. f' ~';' ''< '^^f^s^, '~f-^^^^. •^^"..^ '-s's^^-' •''•» as compensation aiong with interesf @ 6% per annum from ths date of fiiina of the ciaim petition tii! the date of actual pavment. 7. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsei for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred En not accepting the imants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/'- per annum oniy; in seiecting lower muitiplier of 13; and in awarding iow c-ompensation of Rs.3,27,000/- on!y. True, the ciaimants pieaded that deceased Sarojini @ Saroj Pandey used to earn Rs.4,500./- per month by stitching clothes and i.mbroidery, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching IH Trit i!!e U! t(]i deceased on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only. 9. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity In the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased bvthe Tribunal. 10. The ciaimants' dependencv also has been rightiv assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3ra of the income of the deceased towards her oersonal exoenses. 11. The muitiplier of 13 selected bv the Tribunai Bso cannot be found fault with considering that eeceased Sarojini @' Saroj Pandey was 45 years of age on the date of the accident and her husband clairnant No.1 Dashrath Pandey was shovi/n to be 4E years of age in the ciairn petition. 12. • We, therefore, do not fina' any scope for enhancement oft'ne comDensation either on account of the assessment of the Income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or tne muitipi Tho aDDeai fiied bv the as ^Sl' s Tor enhancement of the compensation, iherefore, is liabie to be dismissed.and is hereby dismissed, summarily. ^_-——-- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd'- ^^rsinba S»m judge '?.