HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,JJ. M.A.No. 565 of 2004 Appellants CLAIMANTS ^s^'^'mts.; i'il61B!K Respondents Non-applicants. 1. Kailo Bai, w/o. Kulal, aged about 32 years. 2. Ratan Manjakri, w/o. Kulal, aged about 30 years. 3. Kunbhkaran, s/o. Kulal, aged about 14 years. 4. Satwani, D.o. Kulal, aged about 12 years. 5. Urmila, D/o. Kulal, aged about 10 years. 6. Piiar Singh, s/o. Kulai, aged about 8 years. 7. Mankunwar, D/o. Kulal, aged about 5 years. 8. Bifaiya, d/o. Kulal, aged about 3 years. 9. Mangal Singh, s/o. Kulal, aged about 1 V-i years. Appellant No. 3 to 6 are minors through guardian mother Kailo bai, (Appellant No.1) & Appellant No.7 to 9 are mjnors through guardian mother Smt. Ratan Manjari, w/o. Kulal (Appelalnt No.2). All are r/o. village Kaskela, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). Versys 1. Muneshwar Giri, S/o. Balram Giri, aged about 21 years, occupation Agriculture, r/o. village Raisra, P.S. Jhilmili @ Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). /' iSI'g'g i*> (Driver) 2 Baliram, S/o. Vikram Ram, aged about 50 years, occupation Service, Bit Guard, r/o. village Raisra (Chandrameda) P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). (Owner). 3. United India Insurance Company Lt d., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Dikstt. Surguja (CG). (Insurer). 'n 'r"!i""i ApReal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present : Shri Atnu Ghosh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon 14* September, 2010) Per T.P. Sharma, J. By this appeal, the appellants/claimants have challenged legality and propriety of the award dated 5-4-2004 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 53 of 2002 whereby against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,96,085/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment for his death in motpr accident. l^^,!^ jj;| 2) As per the case of the parties, Kulal who was working in S.E.C.L., Vishrampur, died on account of motor accident occurred on 28-11-2001 when respondent No.1 was driving the offending motor cycle bearing No. M.P. 27 -E/4028 owned by respondentNo.2 and insured with respondent No.3. After assessing the incdme of the deceased as Rs.5121/- on the basis of payslip andfixation of 1/5 share of his income towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,96,085/- along with 6% interest per annum to the appellants against respondents No. 1 and 2 while exonerating the respondent No.3. 3) We have heardlearned counsel forthe parties, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 4) Shri Atnu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has not considered the gross income of the deceased and has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellants with respect to the funeral rites, mental agony, loss of love and affection. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposed the appeal and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. 6) In the present claim case, on the basis of pay slip of the deceased, learned Tribun^l has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5121/- and considering the SQB of the deceased to be 35 years, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 and dedycted only 1/5 share of income towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded CQmpensation of Rs.7,96,085/- to the appellants. 7) On close scrutiny of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, do not find any ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- P. Sharma Judge Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge MW