HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants M.A.(ClNo. 623 of 2010 1 "^mt. Kavjta Nairoji, wd/o Kukesh Nairoji, age 33 years. 2 Ku. Aabha Nairoji, age 07 years, 3 Ku. Divya Nairoji, age 03 years, 4 Aaditya Nairoji, age 1 month, Appellant no. 2 to 4 children of late Kukesh Nairoji, through natural guardian their mother Smt. Kavita Nairoji 5 Narayan Prasad Nairoji, S/o late Kalash Ram, age 63 years 6 Smt. Purnima Nairoji, W/o Narayan Prasad Nairoji, age 61 years All R/o No. 11, Sales Tax Cotony, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Udhav Mindha, S/o Gorango Mindha, age 27 years, R/o vill. Lakhanpur Aamabhona, Distt. Bargarh (Orrisa) (Non-applicant No.1 Driver) Chetan Sharma, S/o Ramanand Sharma, near Govt. Hospjtal, vill. Aatavira, Distt. Bargarh (Orrisa) (Non-applicant No.2 Owner) The Oriental Insurance Company Limjted, through Branch Office, Jail road, Madina Building, Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant No.3) ^.s" 4 Jhangir Aansari @ Jumman, S/o A.G. Aansar, age 35 years, Vill. Chandrakhuri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant No.4 Driver) 5 Sandeep Gupta, s/o late Rudranarayan Gupta, through Mahaveer Provision Store, New Bus Stand, Mahasamund (C.G.) (Non-applicant No.5 Owner) 6 The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Office, Jail Road, Madina Building, Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant No.6) Memorandum of Appeal U/S. 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (30th June, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur(for short, 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 26.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 180 of 2009. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.65,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Kukesh Nairoji, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.02.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ^"k ...^^.. £t.^;3a '^,. -y^ •^33^^^ of Rs.24,79,456/- as compensation along with jnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.20,030/- per month; in not considering the future pay revisson; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16;and in awarding low compensation of Rs.24,79,456/- only. 5. True, the gross income of the deceased was shown to be Rs.21,760/- per month, but the Tribunal considering the permissible deductions, assessed his income at Rs.20,030/- per month. 6. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.20,030/- per month. 7. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of the salary which was proved to have been received by the deceased in his life time and not considering future pay revision. The view taken by the Tribunal in that behalf is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporatton and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 'i ^•"ii^1 ••^y^-^ ^ 'v-^' '•'^-^ '•^. v'-.-€'/ 8. The deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 9. The multiplier of 16, selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that the deceased was aged about 38 years and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 15 was prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 10. 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. 11. The appeal filed 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.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu