HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-Applicants MA(Ct.No.448of2007 1 Barsan Yadav, Age 60 yeare, S/o Shri Gosai Ram Yadav 2 Smt. Roopvati Yadav, Age 40 years W/o Shri Barsan Yadav 3 Ku.Parvati Yadav (Minor) Age 15years D/o Late Bhojram Yadav 4 Omprakash Yadav, (Mlnor) Age 11 years S/o Late Bhojram Yactav 5 Mahesh Yadav (Minor) Age 09 years S/o Late Bhpjram Yadav Minor appellants No.3 to 5 are represented by the appellant No.01, Barsan Yadav All the above are R/o Vlllage - Memradhih, PS Pithora, Distt Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1. Lal Babu Chowarasiya, Age 35 years, S/o Devnarayan Chowrsiya C/o Baj'aj Auto Ltd, Aowrangabad, Distt Aowrangabad (MH) (Driver of the Truck No.CG04/G-4423) 2. M/s Super Sharma Transport, Near Vayas Talab, Beergao, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) (Owner ofthe Truck No.CG 041G-W23) 3. The New India Insurance Com. Ltd., Dh/isional Office at Madina Buikllng, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) (Ins. Com. of the Truck No.CG 04/G- -4423) B3C ^ Memo of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: ShriJA. Lohani, leamed counselfor the appetlants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel ft>r respondent No.3. ORDER (31st August, 2009) The ft>llowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2007, a petition for condonation of thedelay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken In the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succealed in showing sufficient cause Tor the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in flling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.A. Lohanl, leamed counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of e compensation awarded by the Second Additional ^4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for shwt 'the TribunaF) vide award dated 28.09.3305, passed in Claim Case No.34/2(X%. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.28,80,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents smd minor ^sy*e*^ ^,... ^ '"'•'^, ^/y^A 1 ^ -/'/ ^z^ children of deceased Bhojram Yadav, by frtlng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.02.2tx)5, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.3,24,500/- as compensation along with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peUtion till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri J.A. Lohani, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred m not EK^eptir^ the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the d«;easedand in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.W,QOOI- per annum; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,24,500/- only. 8) The claimants themselves pleaded that deceased Bhojram Yadav used to eam Rs.100/- per day as Mason. tt was further submitted that in addition to his income as Mason, he was earning Rs.18,000/- per annum from agriculture. The claimants' witness AW-2 Balu categorically stated before the Tribunal that the deceased used to work only Tor eight months as Mason and was undertaking agricultural operations durlng the remaining four months. The Tribunal on the above evidence assessed the income ofthe deceased at 2,500/- per month and Rs.30,CXM/- per annum. 9) On due consideration, we do not find any Infirmity in the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased by the TribunaL .:.3;''»- .^s^ •"a-. \\. "iiai ../<•'• 10) The clalmants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that the deceased was shown to be 38 years of age in the post mortem report and In viewof the recent dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Saria Venna (Smt.) airi others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121, wherein the multiplier of 15 only was prescribed for the age group between 36 - 40 years. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal Tiled by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge subbu