TB IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. (C) N0. OF 2008 'Si-Sf" F ^ ?!<S i.^' &i:^S^^d ^S^. ^PPELLANTS ^tSi.c.- a.«ta'si-' .l-. Amarnath Son of Kartikram Kenwat aged about 30 years; (Driver of the vehicle Marshal Jeep N0. C.G.-04-ZC/0947) 2/ Santosh Kumar Verma Son of Johan Lal Verma, aged about 40 ^b\ J...-^<' years; of the vehicle Marshal Jeep N0. C.G.-04-ZC/0947) ^y Pl Both resident of Village Sildaha, ^ Police Station Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). '1.>-'-<¥^>'>"1; years; -:'^'^"^- (owner .T?"^' " ~ ^ . *** W^v^.-- ^^^'•t- \' \' RESPONDENTS e"^iCAIMANTS VERSUS 1. / Titari Bai widow of Late Nathuram 7 Verma, aged about 41 years; 2.'; Ku. Durga D/o Late Nathuram ^ Verma, aged about 15 years; J:^ Durgesh D/o Late Nathuram Verma, aged about 12 years; 4. 'i Kamlesh Kumar Son of Late ^f Nathuram, aged about 07 years; Y The respondent No.2 to 4 are Minors, through their natural guardian MotherTitari Bai. All resident of Village Sildaha, Police Station Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). @ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 \. ''"' "f. 4. Y HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 964 of 2008 Appellant Amarnath 8s another Versus Respondents Titari Bai 86 others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1973 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi SE Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants. Ms Kiran Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 18th day of March, 2011 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellants (driver and owner) arises froin the award dated 5th February, 2008, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District - Bilaspur, awarding a suru ofRs. 3,21,500/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to the clairaants. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was not insured. The appellants have field this appeal on the question of quantum only. The facts, in brief, are that on 6.5.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. deceased Nathuram Verma was going to village - Ghuteli from his native village- Sildaha. At that time the non-applicant No.l driving the vehicle- Marshal Jeep, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-ZD/0947, in a rash and.negligent manner, came from the wrong side of the road, dashed Nathuram Verma. A wheel of the jeep ran over the body of Nathuram Verma, as a result'of which he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police Station - Patharia where the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the non-applicant No.l/driver. The claimants being widow and children (total four claimants) of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles \: ^•'"wt~K:i . r1. /' ^"'^ ^ .il 7. 8. C^) Act, 1988 for award ofa total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- under various heads'. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased was 50 years, as mentioned in the post mortem report, though in the statement given by the widow of the deceased naraely Titri Bai the age of the deceased was described as 48 years. However, it makes na difference as the multiplier applicable for fhe age of 46 to 50 years is 13, as laid down in the case of Sarla Verina (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corppration and another1. The income of the deceased has been a.sgessed by.the Claims Tribunal as Rs. 3000/- per month which is miniinum monthly income for a labour and therefore the annual incoine comes to Rs. 36,000/-. One third (1/3) of the total income has been deducted by the Claims Tribunal for personal and living expenses of the deceased thus the 2/3rd of the dependency comes to Rs., 24,000/- per year. Multiplier of 13 has rightly been made applicable by the Claims Tribunal and thus the total loss of dependency was assed as Rs. 3,12,000/-. We see no inadequacy therein. The compensation has been fixed by the Claims Tribunal in accordance .with the norms, applying the correct multiplier as laid dpwq in the case ofSarlaVerma (supra). No other point is raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants in regard to compensation awarded under conventional heads etc. In view of.the above discussion, we do not find any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra SA'- I-M.Quddusi Judge Judge Thakur (2009)6 SCC 121