'^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BaJVSPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHTO RAJEEVGUFTA, CJ. & HON'BLESHRI SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS Misc. Appeal (Ct No. 184 of 2007 1. Smt. Sahodra Bai, vvd/o Vaanram Chandra, aged about 42yesss; 2. Smt. Pingla Bai, wd/o Chhiblnath Chandra, aged about 70 years; 3. Pushpendra Chandra Sto \ate Shri Vazanram Chandra, age 24 years; 4. Pushpa Chandra, D/o late Shri Vazanram Chandra, age 22 yeara; [Alt resident of village Bhadora, Post Office - Peerda, Tah. Mal- Kharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Dinesh Prasad, S/o Ramanand mahato, aged about 48 years, Driver, R/o Ganja Chcwvk, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Shri Ganga Prasad Gwpta, Sfo late Shri P.R. Gupta, R/o Ganja Chowk, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insuranee Company Limited, Offioe - Itwari Bazar, Nayaganj, Raigarh (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTK)N 178 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Smt. Meera Jaiswal, leamed counsel for Nie appetlants. Shri Varunendra Mishra, learned coureet for respondent No.2. Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel for respondert No.3. ^:l»^s OR D E R (24th August, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on ajml^ion. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidente Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.11 .2006, passed inClaim Case No.1^1^8. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.22,55,(X)0/- claimed by the appdlants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, raother and ©hildren of deceased Vazanram Chandra by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in ttie motor accident on 17.04.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants along wtth mtarest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Smt. Meera Jaiswal, leamed counsel for the appeBants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assesslng his income at Rs.40,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3r of the income of the deceased tow@rds h's personal expenses; in ^lecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- only. 5. During the course ofhearing Shri Abhishek Slnha, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company @ <, Y- Limited pointed out that a sum of Rs.4,63,865/- was deposited by the insurer of the offending vehlcle in satisfaction of the Impugned award before the Tribunal on 18-01-2007. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deeeased at Rs.40,000/- per annum. By deducting a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.26,030/- pe[ annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.26,(XX)/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,38,00(y-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,OW/- under other heaets and Rs.5,000/- towards damage to the motorcycle, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 7. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Vazanram Chandra used to earn Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from hte Agricultural Land and the Kirana Shop, no documentary materlal was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deeeased was running any shop at all. The Agricultural land of the deeeased can well be cultivated now by his major son appeflant No.3 Pushpendra Chandra, aged about 24 years either himself or with the help of Agricultural labour. 8. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity inthe assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tnbunat srt Rs.40,0(X)/- per annum. ^ .^,.. '% /r^^ ^ 1 ^SS'.^ aT'?.' "•-w^ ^•SeS^ •<. 9. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting about 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personalexpenses. 10. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with, considering that deceased Vazairam Chandra was aged about 44 years on the date of the aecictent, whereas his widow Smt. Sahodra Bai was shown to be 42 years of age and liis motherSmt. Pingla Bai was aged about 70 years, on the date of the accident. 11. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants/ cldmante for ttie enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liaUe to t» dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. V.-. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi