HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRi HON'BLE SHRI , C.J. Claimants Misc Appeal (C) No.74 of2008 1 Smt Bimla @ Mamta Patel, aged about 36 years, Wd/o Late Krishna Kumar Patel 2 Ku Maheshwari, D/o Late Krishna Kumar Patel, aged about 17 years, Minor through mother Smt Bimla Bai @ Mamta Patel Both r/o Village Pathariya, Post Medesara, PS Nandini, District Durg Respondents VERSUS Garibaram Sahu, S/o Kheduram Sahu, aged about 31 years, R/o Nayapara, Durg, Near House of Kashiram Chakrawarti, Durg (CG) (Driver) RAkesh Kumar Tejwani, S/o Nechandram Tejwani, aged about 33 years, R7o Sindhi Colony, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) (Owner) Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, GE Road, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) (Insurer) laneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act fy ;S5 ^: /' Present : Shri AK Prasad and Shri Roshan Verma, counsel for the appeilants. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. >>>.. :^ •Y ^ (29th June, 2011) The follovving order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compens'ation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No.53/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,49,000/-,claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother and sister of deceased Preetam Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.2,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per an.num from the date of filing ofthe claim petition tiil the date ofactua! payment. 3) The Tribunai held the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.CG-08 ZD/1518 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deductlng 2/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under othertieads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,22,000 /- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Preetam i't. EiT ^^% /}&. '%ii ^ S SSsaa^ 'I s i "^ %te..-1"1 rf? ff fe •< . •• •Y Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual paymerit. 4) Shri AK Prasad and Shri Roshan Verma, 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 assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per annum only; in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower muitiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- only. 5) Shri Pankaj Agrawat, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Llnited India Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Preetam Kumar, aged about 21 years used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in Brick Clean, the evidenceled in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7) The claimants' dependency even if is assessed at Rs'.18,000/- per annum by deducting only 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, theappropriate il^es ^ ^- s '•,\ V^^-i •••t- .padma^ .ffy ^: multiplier in the case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, repori:ed in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wouid not be more than 10 as the claimantsare mother and sister of the deceased and the deceased was unmarried; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18.000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation would work out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the ctaimants would become entitied to receive only Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the deathof deceased Preetam Kumar in the motor accident; the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- is less than the amount of Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; even by deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 8) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismjssed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge "••'a.' ^<. \-.