^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISSONBEMCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRJ SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. AppelJants (Cjaimants) Respondents Non-clajmants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 6S3 of2007 1 Gajanand Yadav, Aged 40 years, S/o Late RatanSal Yadav. 2 Govinda Yadav, Aged 16 years, S/o Gajanand Yadav. 3 Sheema Yadav, Aged about 13 years, D/o Gajanand Yadav, Ai! are resldes at Vitlage - Memradhih PS Pithora, Distt Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1 Baraturam @ Ramlal S/o Shri Sukhadas R/o Viltage - Khamhariya Thana - Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG) 2 M/s Nandlal Jaswani, Makdum Makers, Budhawari Bazar, Bilaspur at present resides at Maha Satti Ward, Bhatapara Distt Raipur (CG). 3 The New India insurance Co.Ltd. Through Divisional Office, Jail Road, Madina Building Raipur (CG). 1% Appeal underSection 173ofthe IVEotor Vehides Act. 1988 Present: Shri J.N. Nande, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vikash Shrivastava, counse! for respondents No.1&2 Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th S (17m September, 2009) ", The foliowin^ order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^l M'-;: ^) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on IA.No.01/2007, an applicatioh for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is ailowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement, of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 01.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No.73/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- claimed by the appeliants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Aghanmoti, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 05.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri J.N. Nande, Jearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low \ compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- only. 8) Though the claimants pieaded that deceased Aghanmoti used to earn Rs.100/- per day, the Tribuna! assessed the income of '?^:^il^- ' H •-K'^ s -^ ^ subbu the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the reasonings given by the Tribuna! in para 15 of the impugned award; we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of -the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10) The ciaimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting the usuai 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunat cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Aghanmoti was aged about 35 years and her husband, daimant No.1 Gajanand was shown to be 40 years of age on the date of the accident 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account ofthe assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased orthe ciaimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appeiEants/ cialmants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabfe to be dismjssed_and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- ChiefJustice i:\. Sd/- s"nil Kumar Sinha Judge