^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SUMiL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS/ CLAJMANTS: Jaideep Kosta, S/o Late Shri Radhe Shyam Kosta, Aged about 40 years, R/o Das Gaii, Village Hatkachora, Jagdaipur, Dlstrlct Bastar (C.G.) Pradeep Kosta, S/o Late Shri Radhe Shyam Kosta, Aged about 35 years, R/o Das Gali, Village Hatkachora, JagdaSpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. 5. 6. 7. Kamai Verma, S/o Shri Ramchander Verma, Aged about 28 years, R/o Kumhar Gati, House of Om Nahata, Bahadur Ganj, Ujjain (M.P.) Ram Ratan Yadav, S/o Shri Laxman Jj Yadav, R/o 11 Sakipura, !ndore Gage, Ujjain (M.P.) Nationa! Insurance Company, Branch Ujjain (M.P.) Through Branch JagdaSpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Satyanarayan Yadav, S/o Shri Ramratan Yadav, Aged about 27 years, R/o 11 Sakipura, indore Gage, Ujjain (M.P.) Banshi iai Bhati, S/o Shri Munna Lal Bhati, Jigam Ganj, Upsn (M.P.) Devendra Kumar Tare, S/o Shri Vaman Rao Tare, 132, M.i.G. Indira Nagar, Ujjain (M.P.) United India insurance Company Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) Through Branch Jagdalpur, Dlstrict Bastar (C.G.) '^ AoeeaLUnder Sectlon 173 of Motor Vehlcle Act,1988 <^/ Present: Shri Alok Dewangan, counsei for the appdlants. None for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms Sangita Mishra, counsel for respondent No.7/lnsurance Company. ORDER (13th March, 2008) The foliowlng order of the Court was passed by Gupta, CJ. Learned counsei for the parties are heard on M.(C.) P.No. 1952/2006, a petitjon for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appea!. 2) On due consideratjon, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3) Therefore, M.(C.) P.No.1952/2006 is aliowed and the deiay In fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The appetlants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Third Additlona! Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdaipur (CG) v.'de award dated 3rd Juiy, 2006 in Ciaim Case No.138/2004. 6) The appellants/cialmants claimed compensation of Rs.16,50,0007- for the death of their slster Kum.Rinki @ Rupsita, aged about 11 years In the motor accident on 31.05.2003 when the bus bearing reglstration No.MP.09.3-5675 dashed the other bus bearing registration No.MP.13-C-4465 in which Kum.Rinki @ Rupsita was traveliing with her parents resulting in muitiple injuriss to Kum.Rlnki @ Rupsita, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. 7) The ciaimants further pleaded that their' slster Kum.RinkI @ Rupsita was a briliiant student and as such would 'nave earned atieast Rs.5,000/- per month after comp!eting her education. 8) The Tribunal on the evidence led before It heid that ciaimants' sister Kum.Rlnki @ Rupsita died on account of injuries sustalned by her in the motor accldent on 31.05.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negilgent driving of the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No.MP.09-3-5675; as the offending bus was Insured on the date of the accident .with respondent No.S-Nationai insurance Company Limitsd, the said insurance Company was iiable to pay the compensation to the dalmants. 9) As the deceased girl Kum. Rinkl @ Rupsita was not an earning person on the date of the accident, the Tribunai assessed her income at Rs.15.000/- per annum on the basis of the notjonai income prescribed under the Motor Vehicies Act. By deducting only a sum of Rs.6,000/- as persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' annua! dependency was assessed at Rs.9,000/-. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.9,000/- with the muitiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to ^ ^^^^ Rs.1,35,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permisslble heads, the TribunaE awarded a totai sum of R.s.1,45,000/'- as compensation to the cialmants for the death of their sister Kum.Rinkl @ Rupsita in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation in the event of insurer's fallure to deposit the amount of compensation withln two months. 10) Learned counse! for the appeilant vehementty argued that the compensatlon of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is too iow in vsew of the fact that appeiiants' sister Kum. Rinkl @ Rupsita was a briliiant student and had a bright future. 11) Shrl HB Agrawal, iearned Senior Advocate for respondent No.7 on the other hand supported the award and submitted that the compensatlon of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! to the claimants cannot be termed as inadequate as the glrl was neither having any income of her own at the tlme of accident, nor the ciaimants were dependent on her. 12) Considering that the deceased Kum.Rinki @ Rupsita was about 11 years on the date of the accident; the claimants who were her eider brothers aged about 40 years and 35 years respectlvely and as such, must be having income of their own, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeai, therefore, Is liabie to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarity. ___ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^c^-