HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BSLASPUR Coram:- Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal & Hon'bleShriR.N. Chandrakar.JJ M.A.(C)No. 1336 of 2007 AppeSSants Claimants ^ Respondents 1. Majidun Nisha, W/o Late Makbul Ahmed, aged about 38 years. 2. Mahfooj Ahmed, S/o Late Makbul Ahmed, aged about 20 years. 3. Mashruf Ahmed, S/o Late Makbu! Ahmed, aged about 18 ye^rs. 4. Masook Ahmed, S/o Late IVIakbul Ahmed, aged about 16 years. 5. Salamoon Nisha, D/o Late Makbul Ahmed, aged about 14 years. 6. Aaftab. Ahmed, S/o Late Makbul Ahmed, aged about 12 years. 7. Mahtab Ahmed, S/o Late Makbul Ahmed, aged about 10 years. Minor appellants No. 4 to 7 Through - their tegal guardians mother-Majidun Nisha Ail are R/o Village : Amav, Khaga, Distt.: Fatehpur (U.P.) Present address - Pump House Korba, District -Korba Versus 1. Kartik Ram Patei, S/o Budhwar Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o Village : Charpara, Kohdiya, Kdrba, District-Korba(C.G.) (Driver of the offen.ding vehicie) .ass^g 2. B.K. Sarkar S/o A.K. Sarkar, R/o Q No. 1040/1042, Yamuna Bihar, Block No.3 Jamnipati, Korba (C.G.) M.I.G.63 M.P. Nagar Korba, District - Korba(C.G.) (Owner of the offending vehicie) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, Korba, District - Korba(C.G.), (insurer of the offending vehicle) IVIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel forjthe appellants. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for respondent No.1&2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3 Oral Order (24.06.^011) Foiiowing order of the Court was passed by N.K. Aaarwai. J. "Heard. 1) This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short the Tribunal) in Ciaim Case No. 168/2007. 2) As against the amount of Rs.70,00,000/- ciaimed by the appeliants/claimants by filing claim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their bread earner tate Makbul Ahmed aged about 46 years, the learned Tribunat has - awarded Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dat^ of actual payment. V. 3) The learned Tribunalon a close scrutinyof the evidence led before it held that the accident occurred due to rash and. negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-12/C-00863;assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- perannum, lookingto the age of the deceased as 46 years at the time of accident and number ofclaimants as seven, applied the multiplier of 13 and deducted only 1/5 towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded Rs.3,74,400/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The leamed Tribunal has further awarded Rs.25,600/- in other heads (Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.5,600/- towards funeral expenses), thus, awarded total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation payable by the respondents including insurance company along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Govind Dewangan, tearned counsei appearing for the appeilants would submit; the learned Tribunai has erred in assessing the income ofthe deceased as Rs.3,000/- only and thus has er'red in awarding low amount ofcompensation. 5) On the other hand, iearned counsel for the respondents would support the award and would submit in the factsand circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable. 6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record ofthe Tribunal including award impugned. 7) As per para 7 of the statement of Masid Nisha (AW/1) wife of the deceased, the barber shop was being run by her husband, her husband was not working in the barber shop and was beingrun through other workers. Her husband used to take 50% share from their income. Four barbers were working in the salon and each barber was earning approx Rs.40-50 per^' day and collectively th6y,used to earnRs. 100-150 per day, approximately. 8) If we consider the above statement of appeliant No.1 herself, it appears that th6 deceased was not earning even Rs.100/- per ^^'^ s ^^.^^ 0- /f Vljay 9) 10) day, therefore, the income of the deceased assessed by the iearned Tribunal as Rs.100/- per day, Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum could not be found fault with. Looking to the age of deceased as 46 years, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13. The learned Tribunal insteadof deducting 1/3rdof the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; has onty deducted 1/5 and awarded Rs.3,74,400/- on account of loss of dependency, The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.25,600/- on other heads and thus awarded a tota! sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, which in noway, in the factsand circumstances of the present case can be said to be on lower side. For the reason mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any merit intheappeal. The appeai being devoid of mer'rt, is Hable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ' v ''