'BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & 'BLE SHRi M.A.i 1 Leeia Bai Yadav Wd/o. Bhagirathi, aged about 43 years. 2 Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Bhagirathi, aged about 24 years. 3 Ku. Kuleshwari Yadav, D/o. Shagirathi Yadav, aged about 22 years. 4 Ku. Mamta Yadav, D/o. Bhagirathi, aged about 20 years. 5 Ku. Meena D/o. Bhagirathi, aged about 18 years. 6. Baltu Ram Yadav, S/o. Nathu Ram, aged about 70 years. 7 Pancho Bai Yadav, w/o. Baltu Ram Yadav, aged about 65 years. All resident of Villsae - Ghuahsidih, Poiics Station - Utai, Tahsit S District Durg(CG). Dilip Kumar, S/o. Phunda iai Satnami, aged about 35 years, r/o. village Ghughsidih, P.S. Utai, Tahsil & District Durg (CG). (Drh/er of vehicie Tempo No. CG-07- Z'A-1153) Santosh Kumar Deshtahare, S/o. Hariram Deshlahare, aged about 45 years, R/o. Ward No. 42, Santoshi Chowk, Kasaridih, Durg (CG). (Registered owner of vehicle Tempo NO.CG-07-ZA-1153) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Post Sox No. 51, Malviya Nagar, Durg (CG) (Insurer of vehicie Tempo No. '«»>. CG-07-ZA-1153) Policy No. 1 243 year 2005. Present: Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. nd The following order of Court was passed by Shri Shrawan Agrawal, iearned counsei for the is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.01.2007, passed in Claim Case No.213/2006. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.13,83,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, children and parents of deceased Bhagirathi, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.04.2005 / 25.04.2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.4,73,482/- as compensatlon to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) The Tribuna! assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/- per annum from the salary and Rs.10,000/- per annum from agriculture and the total income of the deceased as such, was assessed at Rs.49,600/- per ^^'4.^^. f€:s%\ ®S»iS«,I1 c^/ annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.48,600/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased; the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.33,066/- per annum, which was rounded off to Rs.33,100/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dep^ndency of Rs.33,100/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out Rs.4,30,300/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.3,682/- towards medical expenses and Rs.39,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.4,73,482/- as compensation to the claimants. 5) Shri Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,73,482/- only. 6) True; the cfaimants pleaded that deceased Bhagirathi used to get salary of Rs.3,300/- per month in addition to the income of Rs.60 - 70 thousand perannum from agriculture. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the clalmants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs.39,600/- per annum from salaryand Rs.10,000/- from agriculture. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we do not flnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.49,600/- per annum. 8) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. -r-e£^Sy-. '~>'^&;i^^ s l?i£-eP^ 9) The multiplier of 1 3 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Bhagirathi was 47 years of age on the date of the accident and in view of the recent 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 muitip!ier of 13 was prescribed for the age group between 46 -50 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 She Tribunal or the multiplier seiected. 11) The appeal filed by the appeilants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice S&l- ^Chandlakar ^•"" ^udSe