& ^ HIGHGOURTQFCHHAfTlSGARHATBILASPUR DlVtSIONIBENCH '^ COR^M:^^ H HGN'BLE^HRlRANGNATHCIiANDRAKAR.J. :l Mfsc.ADDeaKa N6.934 ofSOlO AppeSlants ©latmants 1. Smt SonrJaitwar, aged about 24 years, VVd/o Latje Santbsh l^ ^s^war .'l;'i'''..;l ..'~1:.' 2. KumariLaxmi,aged about^^O^ 3. Guddy,agedaboijit03years :^Both|s|nJ&.||jaug|t^r^pf;1ate^Santos ;^iKumar^itwar^/l-^l^N^;^ All R/o^^^^^^^^^^ BJtespur, i^lice 8tatton Civf ':;paspyr^OG)'.;.^':..i^::,,.',- -VERS:U61':,:--:1;'' ^ ':.< ~~^. 1. ^Amar NathvSingh| S/aJanki SJrigh, aged about 32 yeare (Driver), R/o Arya Colony, ^ifra, Police Station Civill-ihes,Biiaspur(CG). 2. Sarabjeet Kaur w^o Sukhdev Singh (owner) R/o I-IIG—22,Arya Colony, Tifra, Poljce Station Civil Lines, BiSaspyr(CG) 1 3. Diyjsional M Insyrance CGmpany Limited, Jabalpur, throlgh Djvjsional Manager, Divjsional Office at Vyapar VitiarRQgid, Bilaspur(CG) ADDealunderSection173oftheMotor¥ehJcle$j^ Responcients Present: Shri D.C. Verma, learned Gounsel for the appeltants. ^tl^ 'K^ ^.ORDiR.,y','.:;:'/:j: (7th October, 2010) Ttte Nlovving^ o .^eev:Gupta,^G.J.^:;l7:^,;^:^.^^^ Shri ©.C<A^rma, iearned counsel fon the heard bn I.A. tsfo.O delayinfilihgthe'appeat. 2) Qn due consjc^ counsel for the ^appellaRts and the ^gro^ appijgatjQn,^ar®safis|td;^^^^^ inshowingBijffkyentcauseforthedelayjnfjIinQthe^^^a^^^ 3) I.A. No. 01^10, therefor^^^^^te QSdaysinfiijngtheappeaiisherebycondonedl. 4) Shn D.C. Ver^ heard on admlssioh. I 5) The appellants sre se^ compensation awarded bytl^ EigNh Addjtional IVIc^ Claims TObunai, Biiaspur (for short^^^^^^ dated 04.03:2010, pNssedinClaJmCaseNo^^4^ 6)^^^^^ ^ theappellants/claimants,ynfQrtunatewJdowahdminorchildren^^^^^Q^^ deceased{Santosh, b^fjjingacl^mpetitionuncierSectJori16^^^ the Motor Ve^icles Act, for his^cleath^ 08.01.2008, fheTribunalawardedatcrtalsumo^ ^^ cpmperisation alongNth interest@0% perajnnum^^f^ offitingoftheclaimpetitJQntiJlthedateofactualpayment. 7) Shri D.G. Verma, learned counsel^^^^^^^^^fo vehemently ar^yed that the Tnbunal haserred in^^n^ theciaJmants'eviGJenceabouftheincomeofthedeceasedandin assessing his iricome at Rs.lQC)/- per day and^^^^R mohth oniy; in dNucting 1/3 of the income^^^ towards Mis persbnal exper^s; in seieding |he lower m of17;andinawardinglQwcompensationo 8) True, the claimanlB pleaclM ^o earn^R^10|OQQ/- perm andreljableeyiclencewaslecibeforetheTri^unglforestablJshing the income of the deceased to that extenfc ^n fact^mo dGcumentary matenal was produced^ b establjshthatthecleceasedttadanyfurnitureslTbpatall. 9) in this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/-perdayandRs.3,OOQ/-permonth. 10) The deductiQR of 1/3rt of the towards his personal expenses by the Tribynal also cannot be found fauit with in view of the fact that there were pnl^ members in the family including the deceased and t^ wer^childrenageclaboutsixyearsandthreeyearsonly." 11) The multjplier of 17 sele<rted by the Tribynal also canpot;be said to be bn the lower side as deceased Santosh on the date of l^ ^^-" nlmmj w#. 1 the accident was aged about 30 yearsanclimuttip^ beenprescrjbedfortheagegroupbetv^en 26-30 yearsin the recent djctum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhj Transport Corporation and another,reported in(2009) 6 SCC 121 j 12) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in|awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-underotherheads.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^4 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do notjfind any scope^^^^fo^^ enharrcement of the compensation erther on a^ assessment of the incorne of the deceased or th& claimants' dependeneybythe'l'nbunalorthemultjplierselected. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants fbr enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to^^^^^^^ djsmissed and is hereby dismissed summarily? Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sd/- Chiefjustice