HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRi SUNiL KUMAR S!NKA, J. Appellants Claimants M.A.No,99of2005 1 Smt. Kamla Bai widow of Santosh Dubey, aged about 52 years. 2 Ku. Usha Kiran d/o .Santosh Dubey aged about 32 years. 3 Sanjeev S/o Santosh Dubey aged about 29 years, 4 Rajeev s/o Santosh Dubey aged about 26 years, 5 Ku. Pushpalata d/o Santosh Dubey aged about 22 years, all are R/o village & Post Bhatapara, distt. Raipur C.G. Present Address : Post Urla, Police Station Urla, distt. Raipur C.G. Versus 1 Siddhu s/o Kirta Kadda agedabout years, r/oWard No.15, Kavardha, distt. Kawardha, C.G. 2 Santosh Rani Saluja w/o Ranjeet Singh Saluja, through Saluja Medical Stores, Kawardha, distt. Kawardha C.G. 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No.2, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sai Nagar, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. ADDeal under Section 17J1 otthe IVIotor Vehicle Act. 1988 Respondents Non-applicants Present : Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (27th April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.10.2004, passed in Claim Case No.77/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,50,000/-, ctaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Santosh Dubey by fiting a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,25,736/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal held the insurer of the offending vehicle Marshall Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.09-ZD/5012 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,731/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.9,731/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at 6,466/- per month and Rs.77,592/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of T?s,77,592/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.6,20,736/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,25,736/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Santosh t rSKtt*Wfrf^^^ •'• •••"•••••^ .,?y Dubey in the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.6,25,736/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,25,736/- only. 5) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicie Marshall Jeep, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.6,25,736/- awarded by the Tribunat cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.9,731/- per month as the salary certificate Ex.P/2 of the deceased produced by the claimants themselves before the Tribunal itseif established the income of the deceased at Rs.9,731/- per month. 7) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.9,731/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased. ff) Considering that deceased Santosh Dubey was shown to be 57 years of age in his postmortem report, the multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the Second (/^ Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55-60 years. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 10) The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. _^ ----._——- - -—-==== padma Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge