4,b HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 167/2007 APPELLANTS Urmila and others Versus RESPONDENTS Kanta and others. ORDER POSTON l^ December, 2010^ Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge ,.^\ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J, M.A.(C)No.167 of 2007 APPELLANT Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-applicants 1. Urmila, Wd/o Keshaw Nishad, Aged about 32 years, 2. Parmeshwar, S/o Keshaw Nishad, aged about 14 years. 3. Bitan Bai, D/o Khedu Ram Nishad, aged about 60 yrs. Appellant No.2 is represented by legal guardian mother Urmila Bai. All residents of Vill. & P.0. Newara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1, VERSUS Kanta, S/o Basant Jangade @ Makhan Das Jangade, Jeep Driver. 2. Usha Bai, W/o Ashok Kumar Jangade, Jeep Owner Both R/o Vill. P.0. Dondekala, P.S. Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.1, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur. \c\'a.fe APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT, W94 Appearance: Shri S.C.Verma, counsel forthe appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon\^. 12.2010) This is claimants' appeal against the order dated 30.06.2006 passed in claim case No. 28/2006 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,03.000/- as total compensation to the claimants in a death case. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 07.01.2006 at 7.30 p.m. respondent No.1 dashed deceased Keshaw Nishad and one Rajendra Kashyap by driving Jeep bearing No. C.G. 04 2P 1728 (for short 'the Jeep') in a rash and negligent manner. It is not disputed that the jeep ^zs:"^ •/A^';;.^;" . "is.. ^ was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Incident was reported at Police Station, Kharora. 3. On account of death of Keshaw Nishad in the motor accident, the appellants/claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,38,000/- and pleading that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month by doing the job of cable operating and was aged 35 years at the time of accident. 4. As against the compensation of Rs.7,38,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants for the death of Keshaw Nishad in the motor accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,03,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal further directed the respondents, in particular, the insurance company to pay compensation. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants confined his argument only to income assessed by the Tribunal. He argued that the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased Keshaw Nishad at Rs.2400/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the contention of the appellants regarding the income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- in the light of unrebuttal evidence of A.W.2 Indra Kumar. No other point was urged. 7. On the other hand, Shri A.K.Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that there was no clinching evidence regarding income ofthe deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2400/-. 8 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned and records of theTribunal. 9. In the present case, three witnesses were examined. A.W.1 Urmila has deposed in his evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- by doing the business of disc operating, but it has not come in her evidence that under whose control the deceased was working. A.W.2 Indra Kumar has deposed in his evidence that he was paying Rs.4000/- to Keshaw Nishad who was looking after wiring work under his cable business. He has further deposed that he was doing business in the name of Rajesh Cable. It was deposed by him that he was partner of R.N.Cable, which was associated with Rajendra Kashyap. In this view of the matter, the evidence of Indra KumarA.W.2 is not reliable since it was not known as to who was paying Rs.4000/- to the deeeased, either Rajendra or he himself. 10. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per month and by deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased worked out the annual dependency at Rs.19.200/-. The Tribunal, looking to the age of deceased as 35, applied multiplier of 15 on the annual dependency of Rs. 19.200/- and worked out the amount of Rs.2,88,000/- as total dependency. By adding Rs.15000/- under other heads, the total compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- was worked out. Although there was no documentary evidence on record to show that the income of the deceased, despite that the Tribunal, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. 1 am of the view that the assessment with regard to income of the deceased by the Tribunal is purely on the basis of legal, clinching and reliable evidence and the impugned order does not call for any interference, 11. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. The compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation. 12. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R-L.Jhanwar Judge li