:^ HBGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS80N BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants (Ciaimants) Misc. Appeat (Cl No. 651 of 2007 1 Smt. Devmati Choudhari, Aged about 50 years, w/o Late Kursho Choudhari @ Dhoom 2 Ishwar Choudhari, Aged about 32 years, S/o Late Kursho Choudhari @ Dhoom. Both are Resident at Village Bijatipaii, P.S. Saraipali Distt Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS Shri Rajendra Kumar Pate!, &o Shri Bhojraj Pate!, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village - Tilalpali Post Kendua Tahsil Saraipali Distt Mahasamund (CG) The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., C/o Divisjonal Office, Jail Road, Madina Buiiding Raipur (CG). Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Respondents Non-claimants Present: Shri J.N. Nande, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.S. Patel, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER rih (17m September, 2009) The foIEowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, G.J. Learned coynsel forthe parties are heard on i.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of fearned counsei for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the dday in filing the appea!. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, Jearned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.56/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and son of deceased Kursho @ Dhoom Choudhari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.12.2005, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.3,.06,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri J.N. Nande, Searned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evjdence about the income of the deceased and in \ assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased tovi/ards hls personai expenses; in selecting the iower multiplier of 11; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,06,000/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kursho @ Dhoom Choudhari used to earn Rs.1.5 - 2.00 iakhs per annum from agricuiture in addition to the income of Rs.50,000/- which he was getting from collecting Tendu leaves, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) On due consideration, we 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. 10) The Tribunal has been qulte iiberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses though the deduction in that beha!f couid have been to the extent of 50% as there were oniy two persons dependant on the income of the deceased i.e. deceased himself and his widow appeliant No.1 Smt.Devmati Choudhari. AppeSEant No.2 Ishwar Choudhari, son of the deceased cannot be held to be dependant on the income of the deceased as this claimant is aged about 32 years and must be having his own independent income. 11) The muitiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Kursho @ Dhoom Choudhari \ was shown to be 55 years of age in his postmortem report and the Second Schedule Cinder Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 3^^^AS ..iW^^ ^,U,^..,L.,,,.,..:,AL subbu prescribes the multiplier of 1 1 for the age group between 50 - 55 years. 12) 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 multipiier selected. 13) The appeal flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dssmissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice A. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •\