\1' HIOH COURT Or CHHATri80ARH. BILASPUR Misc. Appeal ( C I No. 1661/2008 APPBLLAWl'S^ (CLAIB5HATS) 1 Laksamjiabai wd/o Sainjay Ser^ar, aged about 28 years 2 Manish s/o Sanjay Sarwar, aged about 03 years 3 Paakai s/o Saaiay Sarwar, aged about 1 1/2 years 4 Lakhaa s/o Parasraiu Saiwar, aged about 53 ^^ears 5 Jiiu bai w/o Lakhaii lal Sarwar^ aged about 48 years 6 Soiidip s/o Lakhaiilal Sanvar, aged about 12 years 7 Sumeet s/o Lakhaalal Sa^var, aged about 08 years 8 Shajiti D/o Lakhaiilal Sanvar, aged about 14 yeais 9 Sukrita U/o Lakhaolal Sanvar, aged about 16 years. Appellaats No. 2 & 3 beiag laiiior, through fheir legal Guardiaii inotibier Lakshnun bai aad on behait ofappeUaiits No. 6,7,8 and 9 leg il Guardiaa fath.er LalAanlal AU resldents of village Moht^rai, PoUce Statioii Rataiipur, District Biiapsur (Chhattisgarh) Wersus RBSPOWDISKirS (NQN-CLAIMANTSS 1 Vyay Kumar s/o Jaaakram @ Bahadur, aged about 30 years, R/o Kiratpur, P.S. Anaatpur, Distact Ropad (Rooppnagar), Punjab at present-G.T,C. Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, P.S< Bhilai, Distiict Durg (CG) (Driver) 2 Choohad Siagh s/o Jagir Siagh, Hafhkhoj, PoUce Station-Bhilai, District Dui^(CG) (Owner of the vehicle) 3 National insurance Conipaay, Through The Braach Manager, 'I'aba Coinplex, Priyadarshird Nagar, Bilaspur(CG) .^ys^^ ^.^sSS^ .<^as^ 1 \^y 2 M.A.( C ) 1661/2008 p DB: HOyBLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA& HON*BLE SHRI T. P. SHARMA. JJ. Appearai&ce; Shri Dhai-mesh Shnvastava, coimsel for the appeUarits. ORAL ORD1SR (15.12.2008} F'ollowin.g order offhe Court was passed by Suail Kumar SinliaijJ^ Heai'd on adraission. 1'he appellaiits/claimants have tiled tbiis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 tbr enhaacenient of the amount of conipensation awarded ui Claim Case No, 124/2008 by the 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur vide award dated 24.9.2008. Itie appeUaiits/claitiiaiits filed a Claiin petiUon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimmg compensation of Rs.42,75,000/- on account of deafh of Sanjay Sarwai' ia a raotor accident, which took place on 26.10.2007. The appellants/claunants pleaded that fhe deceased was working as a Contractor aad he was providiag labour fbr house paintmg works aiid was eajiiiag Rs. 15-20,000/- p.ni. To substantiate fhis plea taken by fhe appeUaats/claiiaaats, ttiey had examiiied wilte of tAie deceased and one Prafhinesli Mishra (Architect), who stated that tlie deceased was eammg Rs.IO- 15,OOU/- p.m. Except the above oral evidence, no other evidence was adduced by the claitnaats to siipport ttieir claim. I'he tribunal, on its own estimate, determmed ttie monthly mcome of ftie deceased as Rs.3,000/- and yeariy inconie as Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, tiie dependency was detenniaed at Rs.24,000/- per year. The trtbunal applied a multiplier of 17 to the said aaniial dependency aad the amount of conipensation was worked out to Rs.4,08,000/-. By addmg turther sum of Rs.25,000/- under ottier permissible heads, the total amount of coinpensation was ^^^ ^ f£^^'^ j .J / .s^/ M.A.( C) 1661/2008 VO, determraed to Rs.4,33,000/- Tbe tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. troni the date oftiUng ofttie petition tiU its realization. Leanied counsel tbr fhe appellaiits argues fhat ffae tnbunal has assessed a low iticoine of fhe deceased aad a lower inultipMer has been appMed, We have considered tiie arguments advaaced by ieanied counsel for fhe appeUants. After goiag through tihte contents of the impugned award, we are of tiie view tiiat ia absence of aay cogent and clinching evidence, recordiag the iaconie of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly assessed the iacoiae of the deceased ia suni of Ks, 100/ - per day aud Rs.3,000/- per month, We are satisfied that lookmg to the work conducted by fhie deceased, he must be earaiag this inuch ainount per raonfh. We, fherefore, do not tind any fault in such tindiag recorded by the toribunal ui relation to the iacoine oi fhe deceased. As tai' as fhe multipUer is concenied, a inultipUer of 17, chosen by tlie tabunal, also appears to be on fhe higher side iii view of the dictura of the Apex Court rendered in flie matter ot JWcwIndiaAssuranccCo.I/^^^^^^^^^^^ (2007)3 Suprefws Court CasesS3S. We, fherefore, do not find aay scope tbr enhaaceraent ofthe amount ot coiapensatilou. The appeal has no nxerits. 'I'he sarae is liable to be disinissed aad is accordiiigly disinissed at fhe inotion stage itselt. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge sunita