.^^^^. ,.ir^ © A.^-^. ^g^.'^tog. HIGH COURT OF CHHATT180ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCr CORAM: HON'BLE SWU RAJEEV @UPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS M.A.fCl No.1261 012008 1. Sandhya Bai, Wd/o Jagdish Gond, aged abput 30 years, 2. Dhananjay Kumar Gond, S/o Jagdteh Gond, agedabout 12 years, 3. Kumari Sunalna, D/o Jagdish Gond, aged about 6 years, 4. Dhiraj Kumar, S/o Jagdish Gond, aged about 2 years, 5. Subhadra Bai, W/o Late Kalaram ©ond, aged about 60 years, Appellant No.2 to 4 through natural guardian appellant No.1 All R/o Village Krishnabandh, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANTS 1 Chandram S/o Bahoran Ram, aged about 37 years, R/o Sondeeh, P.S. Akaftara, District Janjgir-Champa, Presently resident at Near Electrfc Svb- station, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil and Djstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Bisheshwar Singh, S/o Jodhan Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Seepat Chowk Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited - Through - The Branch Manager, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal U/S 173 ofthe MotorVehlctes Act. -v®% 17 Present: Shri A.V. Shridhar, tearned counsel forthe appeilants. ORDER (18th September, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri A.V. Shridhar, tearned counsel for the appettant$ Is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an apptfcation for conctonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appetlants, we are satisfted that the appetlarrts have succeeded in showing suffteient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the appellants ® heard on admission. 5. The appetlants are seeking enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the First Ackiitional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 09-05-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 249/2007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.10,86,000/- claim«lby the claimants, unfortunate widow, mlnor children and molher of deceased Jagdish Gond for his death in the motor accident on 07-05-2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,54,500/- as compensation alongwith jnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filjng of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ,f€-2^ I 1 -^ ^ 7. Shri A.V. Shridhar, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Trtbunal has erred in not accepting the cjaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,54,500/- only. 8. Though the daimants pteaded that deceased Jagdish Gond used to eam Rs.1^) - 200/- per day s®labour» ttie evidence of his employer before the Tribunal was to the eff^ct that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,0€X)/-and Rs.60 - 70/- per trip. The Tribunal on a thorough cor^ideratton of the entire evidence led by the daimants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs.2,800/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9. On due consideration of the submisstons of the leamed counsel for the appellants and the reasonings gh/en by the Tribunal in the Impugned award, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10. The claimants' dependency also has been rigWy assessed bythe Tribunal bydeducting onlythe usual 1/3rd ofthe income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal Is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 F 4 ')°>. was found appropriate for the deceased who was aged about 33 years. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd 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 multiptier selected. 13. The appeal, therefore, is liable to t>e dismissect and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu