^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATT5SGARH AT BILASPUR DSVISEON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS R.L. JHANWAR, J. JVilsc. Appeal (0 No.176 of 2010 Appellants Claimants h- ^4- Respondents Non-Ciaimants Duiaruram Sahu, S/o Jhumukial Sahu, aged about 60 years (father of the deceased) Smt Shantibai Sahu, W/o Dularuram Sahu, aged about 58 years (Mother of the deceased) Smt Motinbai Sahu, W/o Late BhemanSa! Sahu, aged about 22 years (wife of the deceased) Gajendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Bhemanlai Sahu, aged about 1 and hatf year (Minor son of the deceased) (Appetlant No.4 being minor on behalf of through his iegai guardian mother appellant No.3 Smt Motin Bai Sahu, W/o Late Bhemanlal Sahu, aged about 22 years) Al! R/o Bazarpara, Ghotiya, Police Station - Daundi, District - Durg (CG) VERSUS Bhavesh Agrawal, S/o Shyamsundar Agrawai, aged about 32 years, R/o Bus Stand Daundi, Police Station - Daundi, District- Durg (CG) (Driver of vehicie Mahendra Max bearing registration No. CG/06/4667) The Treasurer, Board for women's works (STEU), through CFSC Daundi, Daundi, District -Durg (CG). (Registered owner of vehicle Mahendra Max bearing registration No. CG/06/4667. 3 The National insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited, Giii Compiex, near Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, Tahsil & District - Durg (CG). (Insurer of vehicie Mahendra Max bearing registration No. CG/06/4667. Memo of Mlsc. Appeal under Section 173 of the JVIotor Vehic!es Act Present: Shri Shlvendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. ORDER &th (19m February, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appeilants Is heard on I.A.No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation ofthe deiay in filing 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 sufficsent cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 26 days in filing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additlonai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.92/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.35,40,000/- claimed by the appeliants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, widow and son of deceased Bhimanlal Sahu, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,06,600/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence held that deceased Bhiman Lal Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.11.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehlcle Mahendra Max; as the offending vehicle Mahendra Max, on the date of the accident, was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was Siable to pay compensation to the ctaimants. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.1,100/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.28,800/- with the multipljer of 17, the eompensation was worked out Rs.4,89,600/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.5,06,600/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,06,600/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actua! payment. 9) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in.not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,500/- per month; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,06,600/- only. 10) True, the daimants pieaded that deceased Bhiman La! Sahu used to earn Rs.500/- per day by selling vegetables, but the evidence !ed in that behalf was not of clinching nature. At a small place iike Balod, a vegetable vendor can earn the profit of Rs.500/- per day aiso cannot be believed. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,500/- per month. 11) The Tribunai has been quite iiberal in deducting less than 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses while assessing the claimants' dependency at Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. 12) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be on the lower side in view of the age of the deceased, hjs widow and his parents and in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of SarJa Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 17 was prescribed for the age group between 26 -30 years. 13) 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 selected. 14) The appeal fiied by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge subbu