airnrrT't' -•=a=---^^-^-.^~»- ^>'( •!5! ^-•: "^^ x^'" p^iEul f^: i^n ^' •s tCtasmants] ..^^r'^r^ ^i ifn^ h;usi, vviij i-ciis oi ii i Aaytu Muriya, Aged about 4i vears 1 ffii&s ^hri A?5wtis u.CiiiS? \^ i Sl s /"'iffiVt 128 vears Both R/o Patri Baharguuapars, Thana Lohandiguda, District iastar (CG) TasawA'ar Khan, S/'o Shri Bahadyr Khan Aged about 30 years, R/o Maudahapara, Raipur ;G) ,'r' (•u' (Driver of the offending Jeep bearing No.CG 04 - Z A /2465) 2. Shaki! Khan, S/o Rashld Khan R/o Maudahapara, Raipur (CG) (Owner of the offending Jeep bearin.q No.CG 04 - Z A /24655 ^ation; »ranch Manaser Insurarsce Companv Ltd., Jagdaipur, Distrlct Bastar (CG) ('lnsurer of Jeeo .bearina No.CG 04-ZA/2465) Ti Mf VI Present Shri Aiok Dewangan, counsei for the gppeiiants. Shri Raj Awasthy, counsei for respondent No.3. The foliowing order of the Court was passed Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No. 1071/2005, a petition for Gondonation of delay in filing the ppeal. 2. On due consideration of the submisstons of learned counsei for the parties, we are satisfied that the appeliants have ;ucceeded in showina sufficient cause for the delav in filina th( appeal. •^ 1071/2005, therefore, is aitowed and the delay of four days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Aiok Dewangan, iearned counsei for the appeiiants is c"^*" ^.f^ *^l^ ^y^ EC*r<^t/~^P iE^J Ui I C^Ui IUS5&IUE I. compensation awarc are seekina enhancement of the by the 4'" Motor Accident Claims Trlbuna!, -t) ir fT.ftl ffnr il i\-'<> ?? UUi 1 III Tribunal'), vide award dated 14.12.2004. passed in Claim Case I'u-U. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- claimed by •the ciaimants, unfortunate mother, eider brother of deceased Jura Muriya, by fsling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident, when on 04.01.2003 the jeep bearing registration No. CG 04 - Z A /2465, in which he was travelling met with an accident and dashed against a tree due to rash and negiigent driving of its driver resulting in muitjple serious injuries to Jura Muriva, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospita! on 15.01.2003, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,68,000/- as compensatlon to the claimants along wsth interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petiticn ti!l fhe ciate of actua! payment. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Jura Muriya was about 25 years and used fo earn Rs.100;- •isr r^sv is<s t?ihi^. ?r^sr' ^'•rfE *^SiJ Sf^ tE.t^'.^ii^i ^>t . 7. The owner and driver of the offendina yehicle jeep did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex pa.'te before the ii^Ui iSl. 8. The insurer of the jeep contested the ciaim and denied its Habiiity to pay compensation to the claimants on the that $he driver of the offendlng vehicle jeep was not hoiding a vatid drivinj iicence; and the jeep was being' piied in breach of the policy 9. The Tribunai on a close scrutinv ofthe evidence led before it heid that deceased Jura Muriya died on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accsdent occurred dw to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehlcts jeep; as the offending vehicie jeep on the date of the accident was insured with, the National Insurance Cornpany Limited, the Insurance Company v.'as iiable to pay compensstion to the daimants. 10. The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased- at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum.Bv deductine 1/3'd of Rs.18,000/- towards (^ deceased, the c!aimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- pe.r annum. By muitlplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12.000/- with the multiptier of 13, the compensation was 'A'orked out to Rs.1,56,000/-. By awsrding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under othsr heads, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,68.000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jura Muriva in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payrnent of interest @ 6% per annum on the above imount of compensation of Rs.1,68.000/- from the date offiiing of the ciairn petition, till the date of actuai payment. 11. Shri Alok Dewangan, learned counsei for the appeilants vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting th( ciairnants' evidencs about the income of the deceased and in assessing his incorne at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per innum oniy; in seiecting the iower multiplier of 13; and in awardina low compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- only. 12. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jura Muriyt used to earn Rs.100/'- per dav. But the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any Infirmity in the assessment of the income of the dsceased by th( Trih] a 1 SUi. 13. The Tribunai has been quite liberaf in deductjng only 1/3f° of the income of t'ne deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 2/3 of the incorne of the deceased in yiev/ of the dictum of the ?.latRs.1,500/-Der <1- OSI Bllll i! ^^-«^a^, :"^'^%~ ^ '^~^»-"ry, "\ Apex Court in the case of Donat LouEs Machado & ors. Vs. L. avindra and others, reported in 2000 (1) TA.C. -208 (SC). 14. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunai i$ aiso on ths hiaher in view of the fact that claimant No.1 was mother of the deceased and was aged about 48 years. 15. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal eit'ner on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multipiier selected. 16. The appeal fiied by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summa£ilu- os-arna sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge u^ea^^KB ittu,h»*te