HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 1166/2009 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Respondents 1. 2. Vs. 1. Smt. Inderpal Kaur W/o. Late Tejpal Singh Saini, aged about 24 years Jujhar Singh S/o. Late Tejpal Singh Saini, aged about 02 years, Minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Inderpal Kaur Appellant No.1. Both R/o. Tatibandh Housing Board Colony, Post Tatibandh, Thana Aamanaka, Tahsil and District Raipur Brijmohan Prasad Chaturvedi S/o. Ramprasad Chaturvedi, aged about 41 years, Occupation : Truck Driver, R/o. Village Jhabar, Via Deepaka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG) Gais Ram Sahu S/o. Dashrath Sahu, aged about 64 years, Occupation Owner of Truck & Transporter, R/o. Village Bankimongara Forest Side, Thana Bankimongara, District Korba (CG) The New India Insurance Company Ltd, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional office No.1, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (CG) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri A.L. Singroul, counsel for the appellants. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (21stJuly,2011.) By the instant appeal, the claimants Smt. Inderpal Kaur and Jujhar Singh are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 14 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No.47/2008 vide award dated 28.02.2009. 2. The appellants/claimants preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claming compensation of Rs,24,50,000/- for death of Tejpal Singh Saini, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2. By the impugned award, the appellants/claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Shri A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,64,000/-. Though monthly income of the deceased was Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed the same as only Rs.4,000/- per month, which is lesser than his actual income. The award passed by the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S/lnsurance Company, supporting the impugned award, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstahces of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on closed scrutiny of the evidence available on record, documents filed and submissions made by the parties, assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.48,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of his income towards his personal and living expenses, assessed annual loss of dependency as ^7: Rs.32,000/-. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 27 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, applied multiplier of 17. Assessment of the annual loss of dependency and application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal are just and proper and do nof warrant any interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above, 1 am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is finding of fact and is on the strength of admissible ^ evidence. The award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No interference ofthis Court is called for in the impugned award. 7. In the result, the appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. — Sd/- R.S. Sharma j Judge Bini/GopaI