HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORASVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. IVJisc. Appeat (Ci No. 1049 of 2008 APPELLANTS CSasmants ^. 1. Smt. Lilavati Devj, W/o Late Shri Ramvachan Vishwakarma, age: 30. 2. Jay Chand S/o Late Shri Ramvachan Vishwakarma, age : 14 3. Ku. Santoshi D/o: Late Shri Ramvachan Vishwakarma age:10 4. Ku. Neha D/o: Late Shri Ramvachan Vishwakarma, age: 5 Appeilants No. 2-4 are minor hence represented by their Natural guardian appeilant No.1 Smt. Lilavati Devi W/o Late Shri Ramvachan Vishwakarma. Al! R/o: Street no. 37, Qu.no.1/0, Zone-2, Sec.11, Khurispar, Bhilaj, Distt. Durg. RESPONDENTS Versus Hitendra Kumar @ Horu, S/o: Chotu Narang, age: 25 yrs, R/o: Khedamara, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg, .(Driver ofoffending vehicle) Ifko-tokyo Genera! Insurance Co. Ltd. Through : The Manager, 345- 347, lllrd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Rajpur. .(Insurer) Ram Asare S/o Feral, age: 60, R/o: Viilage : Rakhhi, Bhambhuor, Distt. Gorakhpur (U.P.) 4. Dhanpati Devi W/o Ram Asare, age: 50, R/o: Village: Rakhhi, Bhambhuor, Distt. Gorakhpur. AppeaE u/s 173 iVJ.V. Act 1988 for Enhancement of Award valued 0) Rs.16,05.000/-aaainst the award passed bv the Xlj A.M.A.C.T. Dura Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appeiEants. sth O RD E R (Stn August,2008) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No. 01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeai. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeilants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the detay in flling the appeal. 3. i.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Amyakant Tiwari, iearned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. Appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Twelfth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, vide award dated 23-02-2008, passed in Claim Case No.108/2007. 6. The claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma, claimed compensation of @ ^ ^. Rs.16,05,000/- by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident when on 23-09-2006 he was dashed by the offending vehicle Hero Honda MotorcycSe bearing registration No. CG-07-LD/4036, resulting in multlpie serious injuries to deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital next day on 24-09-2006. The claimants further pieaded that deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Gas-cutter Mechanic in a Private Sndustry. 7. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Hero Honda iVlotorcycle contested the daim and denied their Jiabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma died on 24-09-2006 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23-09-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the offending vehicle Hero Honda Motorcycle; as the offending vehicle Hero Honda Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the Ifko-tokyo Genera! jnsurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 9. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rctof Rs.3,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. .v^^^. /y^'^ ^ ;fl._ '' ' i ''""sg%. i ^ ^-^^ 4 By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitipiier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By awardlng further sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; Rs. 10.000/- for !oss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma in the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,84,000/-, from the date of fiiing of the daim petition tift the dateof actual payment. 10. Shri Amiyakant TiwarE, learned counsel for the appelfants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the Income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- only to theciaimants. 11. Though, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Gas-cutter Mechanic in a Private Industry, no cogent and reliable evidence was ied in that behalf. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on Ets own estimate. 12. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The claimants' 1:1' 1 ^>.-.//. .<.... dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usuai 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13. The muitiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Ramvachan Vishwakarma was aged about 35 years, is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New IncSia Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kafpana and Others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825 wherein the multipiier of 13 was found to be appropriate by the Apex Court in the said case where the age of the deceased was 33 years. 14. 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 muitiplier selected. 15. The appeai, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ——- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu