HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV1SION_BENCH Coram APPBJL^TS Clalmaots [ 1. RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUIVSAR SINHA, J. M.A.faNo. 869 of 2008 1. Bharti Devi Ramani wife of tate Shri Manohar Ramani, aged about 37 years; 2. Harish Ramani son of late Shri Manohar Ramani, aged about 20 years; 3. Surendra Ramani son of late Shri Manohar Ramani, aged about 18 years; 4. Ratan Lai Ramani son of late Shri Bakhatmai, aged about 64 years; AIJ resident of Mahurband Para Kanker, Potice Station and Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) Versys 1. Sandeep Kewalramani son of Shri Narayan, aged about 26 years, Through: Vinay Medicai Stores Kanker (C.G.) 2. Deepa Kewalramani wife of Shri Narayan Das, aged about 49 years, Resident of Manjhapara Kanker, DistrictKanker (C.G.) 3. The National Jnsurance Company Umited, Up of Central Bank, Near R.M.S. Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Memo of Appeal Under Section 173 (21 of the iVJotor Vehicles Act. 1888 Present: Shri P.P. Sahu; learned counsej for the appellants. ' ORDER (29th Ju!y, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsei forthe appeliants is heard on admlssion. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21-09-2007, passed in Motor Accident CJaim Case No.99/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.12,83,568/- daimed by the ciaimants for the death of deceased - Manohar Ramani in the motor accident on 12-07-2005, theTribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.7,31,981/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tj!! the date of actua! payment. 4. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appeliants vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.7,31,981/-on!y. 5. True, the ciaimants pieaded that deceased - Manohar Ramani used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by running a Kirana Shop;but in the income-tax returns filed for the previous two years, the gross income of the deceased shown was Rs.52,971/- and Rs.49,500/- only. In the year of the accident; of course the gross income shown was Rs.93,000/-, but the income-tax return for this year was fiied after the death of deceased - Manohar Ramani in the motor accident. The Tribunai taking into consideration- the gross income of the deceased shown in the last three years assessed his income at Rs.60,000/- per annum. On due consideration, we do not find any jnfirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/- per annum. The ciaimants' dependency also has been rightiy assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usua! 173rd ofthe income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses. 6. The muitjplier of 15 selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of "New India Asswance ComBsnv Ltd. Vs. Kalisana and others. reported in 2007 ACJ 825", wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate in the said case looking to the fact that the deceased was aged about 33 years. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice nsmmi Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge