HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HONIBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. NLA. N0. 169 of 2002 APPELLANTS/ 1. Smt. Manjula Bhatnagar, Wd/a. V.S. CLI‘AIMANTS Bhatnagar, aged about 48 years, R/o. Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. .Manoj Bhatnagar, S/o. Late V.S. Bhatnagar, aged about 30 years, R/o. L-41, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. 3. Smt. Shilpa Asthana, W/o. Manish Asthana, aged about 29 years, R/o. 401, Basera Green Moboch, MP. Pest Chauk Coiony, Sinkandrabad, (A.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Mukut Bihari Soni S/o. B.L. Seni, R/o. Kurud, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. ishwariai Slo. Dherumai, R/o. Risaipara, Dhamtari, Tah. & Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office — Dhamtari, Through : Divisional Manager, kachheri Chauk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri AS. Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (30m April, 2008) @ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appenants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 12-10-2001, passed in Claim Case No.5911997. 2. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.47,00,000/- for the death of deceased V.S. Bhatnagar in the motor accident on 13-08-1996 when the Jeep (Taxi) bearing registration NoMKR— 332 in which he was travelling met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in multiple serious injuries to V.S. Bhatnagar who succumbed to those injuries on his ' way to the hospitai. The claimants further pleaded that deceased V.S. Bhatnagar was aged about 52 years and used to get salary of Rs.7,928/— as Block Development Officer. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased V.S. Bhatnagar died on account of the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13-08-1996; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep (Taxi); as the Jeep, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 4. As the claimants did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal to establish that deceased V.S. Bhatnagar used to get «’/ , salary of Rs.7,928/— as Block Development Officer, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on its own estimate at Rs.5,000!— per month. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.3D,DOD/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000f— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri A.S. lqbai, teamed counsel for the appellants yehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,00,000/— only. 6. As the claimants did not adduce any evidence to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.7,928/- as pleaded by them in the claim petition, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess the income on its own estimate. in this state of evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000i- per month. 7. As there were only two members dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself and his widow — claimant No.1 Smt. Manjula Bhatnagar, we do not find any fautt in 4 @ the approach of the Tribunal in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and in assessing the ciaimants’ dependency at Rs.2,500/— per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum. 8. The muitipiier of 1O selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as deceased v.8. Bhatnagar was aged about 58 years on the date of the accident and the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55 — 60 years. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl" Sdl- Sunil Kuma‘ 5mm Chief Justice . at , _d.i‘ Judge / subbu