i. >. rv"^' OF AT Coram : SHRI CJ.& SHRI SUNIL J. Misceiianeoys (0 No. 522_of^QI8 ^^^t».^^^ €' 1. Diitp Kumar Chandrakar, son of Ba!duram Chandrakar, aged about 37 years. 2. Jagatnarayan Chandrakar., son of Dijip Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 12 years. 3. Pankaj Kumar Chandrakar, son of Di!i"p Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 10 years, Appeiiant No.2 and 3 minor, Through Father Dillp Kumar Chandrakar. Alj resident of Viiiage Sikosa, " Tahsii and Police Statlon Gunderdehi, District Durg, Chhattlsgarh. Versus ] 1. Mohammad Samsul, son of Moh. Sahabuddln @ Rahim, resldence of Kamal Colony, Baloda Bazar, Tahsl! Bhatapara, District Raipur (Driver of Vehicie N0. Truck C.G.04Z/4050) 2. Suresh Yadav, son of Jhibaggan Ram Yadav, restdence of Kamal Colony, Baioda Bazar, Tahsi! Bhatapara, DJstrict Raipur (Owner of Vehjcle No. TruckC.G.04Z/4050 3. New india Insurance CompanyLimited Through Branch Manager, Ne'w India Insurance Company Limited, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Chhattisaarh. underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Atf. i:S^NSt59*^»8t^?^'-^-^ ^:^^^'^^^^\ ]t t- rk ^i^^.ys-^'^:^^^--^ • Present: Shri Om. P. Sahu, iearned counsei for the appeliants. ORDER (28th A|ml, The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Om. P. Sahu, learned counse! for the appeiiants is heard on admission. 2. This is ciaimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional iViotor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Durg (for short "the Tribunal") vide award 13-02-2008 passed in Claim Case No.57/2007. 3. The claimantSs unfortunate husband and minor sons of deceased - Latabai @ Geeta Bai claimed compensation of Rs.24,05,000/- by fiiing a daim petitlon under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act (for short "the Act") for her death in t'ne motor accident on 18-05-2007 when she was dashed by the offendlng vehicle - Truck bearing registratlon No.C.G.04 J/4050 resuiting In her Instantaneous death on the spot ItseSf. The cisimants further pleaded that the deceased - Latabai @ Geeta Bai used to earn Rs.200/- per day by running vegetable and fruit shop at Bus Stand. 4. The owner, driver and Insurer of the offending vehicie - Truck contested the ciaim and denied their llabJSity to pay compensation to the cialmants. 5." - The Tribunai on the evidence isd before it held that deceased - Latabal @ Geeta Bai died on account of the snjuries sustained by her ./^^^, Ksi*^'^' ^•"' £ fc: -^ ^•^':~-'' in the motor accident on 18-05-2007; the accldent occurred due to rash and negilgent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle - Truck; as the offending vehicie—Truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to paycompensation to the daimants. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annua! dependency of Rs.24,000/- wlth the multipiier of 17 ; the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.14,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.4,22,500/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment to the ciaimants for the death of deceased - Latabai @ Geetabai in the motor accident. 7) Shri OM P Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeiiant vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.3,000/- per month oniy; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,22,500/-. 8) The claimants though pleaded that deceased - Latabai @ Geetabai used to earn Rs.200/- per day by running a vegetabie and fruit^shop at the bus stand, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity padma .^r- in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribuna! has been quite iiberai in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personai expenses. Similariy, the muitipiier of 17 selected by the Tribunai Is rather on the hlgher side in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Vs KaiDana_and^thers reported in 2007ACJ,82.5 . 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the CQmpensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the clalmants' dependency by ths Tribunai, or the muitipSier seiected. 10) Th^ appeai, therefore, is 'iiabie to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge .^Siii^yS^:-^-^