HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH_AT_B!LASPUR Coram : SUNIL J. ^ K?—. f.1 ajmants M.A.(CSNo.16§of200S 1. Shyamial, S/o Kalyansingh Pareshwar, aged 50 years, Caste- Gond, 2. Smt. Gouribai, VV/o Shyamiai Pareshwar, 48 years, Caste- Gond, 3. Birju, S/o Shyamiai, aged 17 years, 4. Samita, D/o Shyamia!, 15 years, Appeiiants No. 3 and 4 are Minors through their natura! guardian Shy'amia!, S/o Kaiyansingh Pareshwar, 5. Sltiyabai, D/o Pruthwi, aged 60 years, Ait are residents of Village Sai Saraipall, P.0. Pirda, Poiice Station- Basna, Tahsii-Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) V.ersus 1. Manoj Kumar Paswan, S/o Nanku Paswan, aged 35 years, Rtesidetit of ;7'odhoh.3k, Poltce Station Bajirganj, Distfiul Gaya (Bihar) At present Resident of New Bihar Transport, Bhanpuri (NBT), Police Station-Khamtarai, District- Ralpur 2. Annapurna Devi. W/o Ramvachan Singh, New Bihar Transport (NBT), Geeta Nagar, Near Bajrang TempSe, Bhanpuri, Police Station-KhamSarsl, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. New India insurance Company Limited, through Divislona! Offlce, Madina Buildlng Jaii Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). lte<i% l^s^ ^ /i "ife"?^ '^. ,^-' SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Sunii Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeilants. ORDER (9mFebrya.«7,2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ.: Shri Sunil Sahu, iearned counsei for the appeiiants is heard on admission. 2) Appeliants/claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 11.11.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No. 183/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.21,90,000/- ciaimed by the claimants, unfortunate eider brother, elder brother's wife, nephew, niece and aunt (father's sister) of deceased Raja @ Sitaram by filing a claim petition under Sectlon 166 of t'ne Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 18.06.2007, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the of filing of the ciaim petition tlil the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sunii Sahu, learned counsei for the appe!!ants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- oniy. 5) Deceased Raja @ Sitaram was aged about 25 years and was unmarried on the date ofthe accident. The claimants pleaded that deceased Raja @ Sitaram used to earn Rs.100/- per day. T^ The Tribunai the income of the at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards hls personal expenses, the cjaimants' dependency was at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24.000/- per annum. Considering the retatlonship of the c.laimants with the deceased, the Tribunai the muitipiier of 10. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- funeral the TribunaE a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation to the cSaimants for the death of Raja @ Sitaram In the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of th.e claim petition til! the date of actuat payment. 6) As the ctaimants themselves pteaded that deceased Raja Sitaram used to earn Rs.100/- per day, the daimants cannot have any grievance in regard to the assessrnent of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants' pleadlng about the ailowance of Rs.50/- per day is not materia! so far as the assessment of the income of the deceased for the purpose of compensation is concerned as thls amount of Rs.50/- per day even if by the employer to the deceased was meant for his day to day expenditure on himself. 7) The Tribunaj has been qulte ilberai in deducting oniy 1/3M of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as in ^^att^ fsw^ view of the dictum of the Apex in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravlndra and others, reported in (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), the deduction towards the personai expenses could have been to the extent of 2/3rd of the incQm.e of the deceased. 8) The muitiplier of 10 seiected by the Tribunai considering that the ciaimants were eider brother, elder brother's wife, elder brother's children and father's sister of the deceased cannot be foundfaultwith. 9) Thus, we are satisfled that the compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the Trlbunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! either on account of the ssoessment of the income of the deceased or the cialmants' dependency by the Tribunai or the multiplier selected, the appeal filed by the appeitants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ~ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu -r""