HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH CORAML HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI 'SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 742 of 2002 AppeHants 1. Kalibai; widow of Ramji Marar, aged Appiican‘is about 3O years, resident of Viliage Kopebhatha, Thana, Saihewara, Tahsi! Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Ramadhar, son of Iate Ramji Mal'ar, aged about 18 years, occupation student No.1 & No.2 resident of Vitage Kritbans, (Gandai-Pandariya), Tahsil Chhuikhadan, district Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents Non-apptiéants 1. Mo‘nd, Aswar @ Ajwar ii, son of Nimajuddin Ali, aged about 30 years, resident of Manan Road Corporation —- 17 Kashinath Malik Kon Choutha Manzil Catcutta - 73, Driver of Truck No. W.B./25l41 27 2. Jaimai Singh son of not known Manan Road Corporation — 17 Kashinath Maiik Kon Choutha Manzil Calcutta —- 72, Owner of Truck No. W.B./25/‘4127 3 Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Caicutta, P.B. No. 113/4, Mango Lane Catcutta' West Bengai. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Venkteshwar 'Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23” Juiy, 2010) A “he QI‘ @ The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rainandgaon, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 04.09.2002, passed in claim case No.22/1998. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,80,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and son of deceased Ramji Marar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.04.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Ramji Marar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.04.1998; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. W.B./25/4127; as the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the goods vehicle, the lnsurance Company was not iiable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability to pay compensation was that of the owner and driver of the Truck. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/— per day; Rst ,5OOI- per month; and Rs.18,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.18,000/— towards the persona! expenses of e (9)) the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at ’Rs.12,000/- per annum. By mumpiying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000I- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 i56,()00/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.19,000l— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramji Marar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Venkteshwar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.5G/- per day only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/— only. 6) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New lndia lnsurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, the insurance Company has been rlghtiy exonerated by the Tribunal. I 7) Admittedly, the vehicle in question (Truck) is a goods vehicle. Though, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramji Marar was . travelling in the Truck along with his goods, it has nowhere been s “pi; @ ! specified as to what were his goods, as the claim petition and the claimants’ witnesses are silent about that aspect of the matter. in the First information Report (Ex P/1) it is mentioned that as many as 2O labourers were travelling in the Truck. AW1 Kali Bai and AW2 Dewan also admitted that there were several other labourers in the Truck. ln this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramji Marar used to earn Rs.70/— per day as Labour, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.50/— per dayj Rs.1 ,SOOI— per month; and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1.13“ of Rs.18,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal too cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that in the postmortem report deceased Ramji Marar was shown to be 5O years of age and the Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) : and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, has prescribed the multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46—50 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for . interference in th finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to a / exoneration of the insurer of the Truck and for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants’ dependency by the Tribunal or the multipiier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ‘1 3) No order as to costs. i ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sdl- Chief Justice subbu i Sdl- ‘i-