\--'i. ^ c^ ^Eff^E, »ram 'r£;i»&«,^ CLASMANT -JUAT' "inMi A il flSI R V E=?fe»i MnM! >s-c o'nni J, Misc.ABpeal No. S81 of Smt. Prakash Kaur W/o Gurucharan Singh Chhabra, Aged about 42 vear R/o. tnfront of Rajendra Tiwari, Kelkarpara, Deshbanddu, Raipur Distt. :ia'our (C.G.) NON-APPUCANTS i-:F OE EStEE'^ ^Ssv !^f^r'~S;H ^./rt. f^E'~ittt' i'i.(rl/vn ^JcSLEii FCBl Oi[iy|i 0/U. Ji^Ujll OIiiy^ Aged about 25 year, R/'o MaEn Road, Dayaiband, Bilaspur, Tah. & Distt.-Biiaspur (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd. Kiitehehri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur(C.G.) •EAL UNC ! IUN 1 fd 73 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACTil?8S i-'rajsfint ' i th^^T'-wJ i^ • Shri S.C. Verma. learned counsei forthe appellant. Shri Surssh Pandey, learngu counsel for respondept E^o.1. Shri A.K. Athaiey, iearned counse! fcr respondent ' No.2/ Oriental insursnce Company Limited. (wrongiy numbered as respondent N o.3 In the memo of appeal) r-i »n (7th Auaust. 'he followina order of the Court was passed .bv 1 Leamed counsei for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 7S1/2Q06, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the 2. On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsei for the parties and the grounds taken in the petltion, we are satisfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufflcient cause for the cjelay in fiiing the appeai. 3. iVI.C.P. No. 761/2006, therefore, is allowed and the deiay of 36 days in fiting fhe appeal is herebv condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are tieard on admission. 5. The appeliant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Eighth Addltional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Rsi.-r rva^Ui (for short, 'She Tribunai') vide award dated 30.03.2005 in Claim Case No.74/20( 6. As against the compensation of ^Rs.30,50,000.'- ciaimed by the appellanV ciaimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Gurucharan Singh Chhabra by fiiing a ciaim pstition under Section 166 of the iVlotor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accident on 23.11.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,40,334/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing ofthe ciaim petition tl!i the date ofactuai payment. -T.. Sh.ri S.C. Verma, iearned counsel for the appellant vehementiv araued that the Tribuna! has erred in awardina lov-/ compensation of Rs.3,40,334/- on!y. 8. The ciaimant herself pleaded and proved the income of deceased Gurucharan Sinah Chhabra at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum K .s, ' '"' '"•'.: i ' K<:sS®i?;, -a: I;-' '*»—<i:' ,£: :Sf^-'fs" v/hich 'A'as accepted by the Tnbunal whiie a-ssessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The appeliant/ ciaimant, therefore cannot have anv grievance in regard to assessment orthe income ofthe deceased bythe Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting onfy 1/3r° of the income of the deceasea towards his personal expenses though the deduction in the present case could have been to th< sxtent of 50% as there were only wo members i.e. the deceasec himself hi'is wifs, appellant' cialmant dependent on the incom. or tne aeceased. 10. The muitipiier of 5 seiected by the Tribunai too cannot be found fauit with as deceased Gurucharan Sinah Chhabr; admltted!v was aaed about 63 vears on the date of the accident and the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act prescribes the multipiier of 5 for the group between 60-65 vears. 11. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of th( '^omn^HSRfjon ?aith?ar nn ^c^c.niini nf thp ^s???a^?smpnt rif thp inr;n" 'Gi ii3£3l.i5«?i1 S?ll,i i^i Ui S C.t.Vf'^i'^ »riti 11. U3 S.1 iC Ki^-i3C-i3<5i li^llt, Ul tiJjSS !1 1^'Us of the deceased or the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the muitiDlier selected. 12. The appeal fiied by the appellant for enhancement of thi '•, comDensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv lismissed, summarilv. Sd/- Ouef Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SUDDU