Q&) HiGH COURT OF CHHARTTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sjnha & Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ AppelSants Claimants Non-applicants / .A.C.No.197/20.10 1. Kumari Sevti, D/o Jagdish Sahish, Caste: Ghasiya, aged about 20 years 2. Jagdish, S/o Kishun Sahish, Caste: Ghasiya, aged about 50 years, soth are R/o Village: - Amethi, Police Station: Aarang, District: Pusau, S/o Milap Satnami, aged about 23 years, R/o Village: Farfaud, Poiice Station: Aarang, District: Raipur (CG) (Driver of the offending iiciei Ashok Kumar, S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, aged about 34 years, R/o Village: Parsada, Police Station: Kharora, District Raipur <CG) of the vehicle] 3. Mana^ jer, ittco ! oKiyo insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road, Raipur, Dis+rict: Raipur (CG) (Insurer of the offending ApBeaI under Section •173 of the.Motor Veh'jcles.Acl Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counse! for the appellants. .^"^^ ./' 'ersi (Passed on 24'" of February, 2010) Kumar Sinha. J Heard on admisslon. (^'w The appeiiants/ciairnants have fiied this ^ appeal for enhancement of amount of compehsation awarded in ciaims ease *l ^ No.143/2007 by-the 9th Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for shortthe 'Tribunal'). (3) The appe!lants/claimants-unfortynate daughter and husband of deceased Kamla Bai filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for 'ner death, which took piace in the motor accident.when she was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero CG-04/HA-1154 on 29.04.2009 on account of rash and nggligent driving of the said vehicie by its driver. (4) The ciaimants pieaded that the deceased was aged about 46 years and v/as earning Rs.8,000/- per rnonth by carrying the business of seiling of pigs. (5) Though the claimants pleaded that t'ne deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the said business, but the evidence led on that behaif was not 6f ciinching nature. Only the daughter of the deceased namely Ku.Sevati (AW-1) deposed in vague manner that her mother was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the said business. In these circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.36.000/-, the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 55-60 years and appiied multiplier of 8 and the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other •heads, the totai amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,22,000/-. The Tribunai also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition i.e. from 16.06.2009 tii! its realization. The respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 1- @ (7) Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed and a lower mujtipiier has been used. (8) As stated above, the appeiiants/claimants pleaded that the deceased. was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from the business of seliing pigs. Ku. Sevati (AW-1) deposed fhat the deceased was having 25 number of pigs and s'ne used to seii big pigs and in this manner, she was earning the aforesaid amount per month. Shatrughan (Aw-2) has supported the said version of Ku. Sevati (AW-1). No documentar/ evidence !n reiation to the said business or income of the deceased was fiied by the claimants. Ku. Sevati (AW-1) admitted in the cross-examination that now all the pjgs have been soid, whereas Shatrughan (AW-2) gave a different version in the cross-examination. It is on this account, the Tribunai did not accept the oral evidence on the point of income of the deceased and the Tribunai assessed the monthly income of the deceased on its own at Rs.3,000/- per month. (9) We do not find any fault in such approach made by fhe Tribunal for assessing the income ofthe deceased. (10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal to deduct oniy 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas the deduction couid have been more than that as the husband of the deceased must be having his own income on the date of accident. (11) As far as multiplier is concemed, it comes in para-13 of the award that in copy of iVl.L.C form (Ex.P-4), age of the deceased has been mentioned as 55 years. In merg intimation (Ex.P-8), her age has been me.ntioned as 60 years and in post mortem report (Ex.P-10), her age has been mentioned as 60 years. It is on this .^ evidence, the Tribunai hetd that the deceased was in between 55- '? 50 years and has applied multiplier of 8, vvhich also appears to be just and proper. •SSSSiiS^^Sf. •v^a-.e'-c^s&ssswti-a .-!•••••• tl- '^' (12) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation. The appeal fiied by the appe!iants/c!aimants for enhancement of amount of compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby Sd/-..,: Sunil KumdrSinha Judge ;SdA':l::- •l'; ^ R.N.Chahdrakar i Judee -\ Priya