HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.378 of 2003 Appellants Claimants /Y •\ 1 Smt Sarita Sharma, Wd/o Late Suresh Sharma, aged about 30 years 2 Ku. Rekha Sharma, D/o Late Suresh Sharma, aged about 14years 3 Ku Nitu Sharma, D/o Late Suresh Sharma, aged sbout 10 years 4 Ku Rupa Sharma, D/o Late Suresh Sharma, aged about 8 years Appeliant No.2 to 4 are minor through naturaj guardian mother Smt Sarita Sharma Wd/o Suresh Sharma Ali R/o EWS - 43, Dr Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, Distt Korba (CG) Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Banmaii, S/o Awadhram Singh aged about 22 years, R/o Majholi, Distt - SidhJ, Present R/o TP Nagar, Korba, Tah&Dlstt-Korba(CG) RK Kediya, S/o Bajrang Lal Kediya, R/o Vldya Up Nagar, Bilaspur, Dlst - Biiaspur (CG) United india Insurance Company Ltd., Commerclal Compiex, TP Nagar, Korba, Dist- Korba (CG) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Vikash Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ./ ^ 1 ORDER (6mAugust,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.03.2003, passed in Claim Case No.13/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.1,07,05,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Suresh Sharma by fiiing a claim petltion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.11.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe claim petition till the date of acfual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Suresh Sharma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.11.2000; the deceased and the driver of the truck equally contributed to the accident andas such, the claimants were entitled to receive only 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay 50% compensation assessed by he Tribunal. 4i^. i~. . ~ ; (. ^^^^;- * ^ '? ''^^Sk i c ^ 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings except the finding of contnbutory negligence recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.60,000/- towards personal expensss of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.40,000 /- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.6,00,000/-. By deductlng 50% of Rs.6,00,000/- towards 50% contributory negligence of the deceased himself, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.3,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the total sum of Rs.3,30,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri ViRash Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his incomeat Rs.5,000/- per month only; in holding that the deceased himseif also equally contributed to the accident and as such, the claimants were entitled to receive only 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- oniy. . f- 1 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, iearned counsei for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal js just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Suresh Sharma used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Carpenter, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Even otherwise, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be said to be at lower side. 10) Considering that deceased Suresh Sharma was aged aboulr 40 years on the date of the accident multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunai is appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 11) So far as the finding about the contributory negligence is concerned, it was the claimants' case themseives that the Scooter and the Truck were coming from the opposite direction. The accident took piace at about 6.30pm on a straight road. In this factual matrix of the case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that '^ the Scooterist and the Truck driver both equally contributed to the accident does not suffer from any infirmity. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal flled by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. l- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma