^^ H8GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B8LASPUR DIVlSIOMBiNCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.170 of 2010 ^/ ADpeJlants Respondents w 1 2 3 4 Smt Mamta Devi W/o Late Vijay Kumar, Aged about 29 years Niraj Kumar S/o Late Vijay Kumar, Aged about 07 years, Minor, the iegal guardian is the mother Smt Mamta Devi appeliant No.1. Harendra Prasad S/o aged about 65 years Late Ramprit Smt. Fulsundari Devi W/o Shri Harendra Prasad, aged about 61 years Alt are resident of house No.362 Pragati Path near Soni Fioor Miil Hanuman Mandir Road Supela Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt Durg (CG) VERSUS Ahamed All S/o Mumtaj Aii R/o Hasan Bag Nandan Van Lay out Nagpur (Maharashtra) (Driver of Swaraj Mazda No.MH - 7506) Asfak ASi S/o Mumtaj Ali aged about 30 years R/o Badi Masjid Hasan Bag Nagpur, Maharashtra (Owner of Swaraj Mazda No. MH - 7506) Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Firdous Chamber, Ramdas Path Verdha Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra Through the RegionaJ Manager National Snsurance Company Ltd Regionai Office Akash Ganga Campus BhEJaE Tahsi! and District Durg (Insurer of Swaraj Mazda No.MH - 7506) 2 . TA IVIemo of MJSC. Appeal under SectSon 173 of the Motor VehicSes Act Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. ORDER »th (18m February, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appeiiants is heard on I.A.No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation of the deiay in fsEing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appellants and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded In showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeai. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, js allowed and the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsei for the appellants js heard on admission. 5) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 121/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs. 1,42,88,3037- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Vijay Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor ^^, ^ I ^ /^ ^^ v^^^s^ -y!^ accident on 16.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,94,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has err6d in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in seiecting the lower multipiier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,94,500/- only. 8) True, the ctaimants pleaded that deceased Vijay Kumar used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month from his EEectronic Goods Shop and was also in the process of estabfishing a Crusher Plant.whereby he would have earned Rs.30,000/- per month, but the evidence ied in that behaif was not of clinching nature. No documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunai to estabiish that deceased Vijay Kumar was running any shop, much less a shop of Eiectronic Goods. Admittedly, deceased Vijay Kumar, on the date of the accident, was not having any income from the proposed Stone Crusher. In this state of evidence, we are of the opinion that the assessment of the dependency ofthe claimants on the incomeofthe deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum is rather on the higher side. 9) Considering that deceased Vijay Kumar was shown to be 35 years of age, the multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunai cannot be said to be on the lower side in view of the recent ."...--^•'^^. ,^'^~s~3%. (^ai, i \^y ^ dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein muitiplier of 16 was prescribed for the age group between 31 -35 years. 10) The Tribunal has been quite iiberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.18,500/- under other heads. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier seiected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summaril^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge subbu