HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV OUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIN.K.AGARWAL,J. APPLICANTS CLAIMANTS Misc. Appeat (ClNo.333 of2007 1. Kunti Bai aged ^ years, w/o. late RupendraSahu 2. Ky. Hema aged 15 years, d/o late RupendraSahu 3. Ku. Deepa aged 1 2 years d/o late RupendraSahu 4. Ku. Suman aged 10 years, d/o IsAe Rupendra Sahu. \ 5. Ku. Mamta aged 06 years, d/o late RupendraSahu (Claimant no.1 is Natural ©uarctian for daimants no. 2 to 5) 6. Smt. Firteen Bai aged 60 y^irs w/oJohan (All above restdent of Nayapara, P.S. Durg, Distrtet Dur$ (C.G.) RESPONDENTS fNON-CLAIMANTSV "\ Versus A 1. Ghanshyam aged 38 years, s/o Dhan Singh, r/6. ward rao. 1@, village Anda, P.S. Put^on, DistrtetDurg (C.G.) Through : Smt. Kiran Devi Jain, W/o. Gendlal Jain, R/o. Behind Digamber Jajn Temple, Station Road, Djstrict Durg (C.G.) (Driver of offending Vehicle no. Dumper no. CG 07/C/3110) 2. Smt. Kiran Devl Jain, W/o Gendlal Jain, R/o Behind Digamber Jahi Temple, Station Road, District Durg(C.G.) (Owner of offending Vehi^e n©. Dumper no. CG 07/C/3110) r" 3. Regional Mans^er, The ©rtental Insurance Company Umjted, Reglonal Office, MalvSya Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOfORVEHiCLeACf.i^S Presenl:: Shri Anyrag.Jha, learned counsel for the appetlants. None fbr respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (7th September, 20@9) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Leamed counsei for the parties are hesrd on LA. No.01/2007, anapplication for condonation ofthedelayin flling the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submfssions of learned oounsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the apDlication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showlng sufficient cause for the delay tn filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 01/2007, therefore; is allowed and the delay of 41 days in fllingthe appeal is hereby cohdoned. 4. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the a^ellants is heard onadmjssion. 5. The appellants are seeking ^ihanOement of the cbmperi^tion awarded by Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Qurg (for short, 'the Tribunat') vide awawd d^ed -A- 31.07.2006, passed in Claim Case N©.212/2005. 6. As against the compensatlon of Rs.13^,00©/-cteimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiWren and mother of deceased Rupendra Sahu by fiUng a claim peUtion urwler Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for hls death to the motw accident on 11.08.2005, -the Tribunal awarded a total aim of Rs.5,47,200/- as compensation along With Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ftling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,47,200/- only. 8. The claimants themselves pleaded that deceased Rupendra Sahu used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason. The Triteunai considering the pleadings and the evidence ofthe claimants about t the income ofthe deceased assessed his income on the ba^s of Rs.150/- per day at Rs.3,900/- per month and Rs.46,800/- per annum considering that the deceased was getting work only for 26 days in amonth. 9. On due consideration, we do not fmd any inftrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tritxinal at Rs.3,900/- per monthand Rs.46,800/- per annum. 10. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducttng the usuat 1/3rd tow^ds the personal expenses of the deceesed while "\ assessing th^claimants' dependency at Rs.31,200/- per annum. 11. The multipner of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be saW to be on the lower side considering the age of tte deeeased arwl ^^-,, ntmmi his widow claimant No.1 Kunti Bai who was shown to be 35 years ofage in the claim petition. 12. For the foregoing reasons, w@ do not flnd any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed .by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to b® dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^^\ i\