M. Coram :- Hon'bte Shri V.K. Shrivastava and Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, JJ Appeilants : Ciaimants Respondents 1. Bhanuram Sahu, Son of Shri Dukhuram, Aged about 65 years. 2. Smt. Garidin Bai, Wife of Shri Bhanuram Sahu, Aged about 60 years, Both are resldent of viflage Guma, Poiice Statjon Suhela, District Raipur Versus 1. Bhuneshvrar, Son of Shri Somdas Manikpuri, Aged about 21 years, R/o Vlliage Guma, Police Station Suheia, District Raipur (CG). Driverofthevehicie 2. Sheksh Shabbir, Son of Shekh Munir, Mohdapara, Raipur, District Ralpur Owner of the vehjcis 3. The New india Ensurance Company Limited, Branch R.D.A. Buiiding, Bajrang iVIarket, Ralpur, District Raipur insurer Present:- Mr. P.P. Sahu, counse! for the appeiiants/claimants. None for the respondents, (ORAL.ORDER) (Passed on 29th January, 2007) The fojlowjng oral order of the Court was passed by Vijay Kymar Shrivastava, J ..^ ^^IK^I^^^^^^I^^^^I^^ This is an appeal under Section 173 of the IViotor Vehides Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act, 1988") against the award dated 31-8-2006 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (henceforth 'the Tribunaj'), whereby ' an award of Rs.1,54,000/- has been passed in favour of the appeliants. Feeilng aggrieved appeliants have preferred this appeai for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2) Jitendra (since deceased) v^as working as conductor in minibus bearing registration No.CG-04/ZA/0615. On 21-6-2005 when the offending vehicfe was going towards Raipur on the way near Hoii Dabri the vehlcle turned turtie, Jitendra received injuries and succumbed to that. Appeiiants are father and mother of the deceased; dalming themseives to be the iegai representatives of the d-eceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming Rs.15,90,000/- tovvards the compensation against the Driver, vehicle pwner and the insurer. Respondent No.1 did no.t file his written statement, whereas other respondents contested the daim. 3) After appreciatlng the evidence adduced by the appe!!ants, iearned Tribunai held rnonthiy income of Jltendra Rs.1500/" and accordingiy assessed annual dependency Rs.12,000/". Learned Tribunal applying muitipiier of 12, aiiowed RsJ,44,000/M towards dependency and further aliowed Rs.10,000/-' towards other heads. 4) Learned counsei for the appellants contended that deceased Jitendra was working as conductor and tovvards saiar^ he was recelving Rs.5,000/- per month, but iearned Tribunal did not accept his monthjy income and erred thereby. 5) From record, it is manifest that the employer has not been examined by the appeiiants, even in support of monthiy income no document or certificate obtained from employer has been tendered or proved. Smt. Garibin Bal In her preilminary evidence deposed that Jitendra was earning Rs.5,000/- per month towards saiary and v^hen she was examined again she stated that Jitendra was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month towards saiary. She further stated that Jj^endra was aiso dolng the business of bete! shop (Pan Thela) and was earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs2,000/- per month, but in cross-examination she frankiy conceded that her younger son Derha is doing the agricultura! work and the business of bete! shop (Pan Thela). Evidentiy her statement was not credible. Learned Tribunai very mlnuteiy evaiuated her evidence and thereafter hoiding that Jitendra was doing the work of conductor, allowed his monthly incorne Rs.1,500/-. From the evidence on record, finding of facts recorded by learned Tribunal does not ©ppearto be erroneous or iliegai. 6) Learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 without taking jnto consideratlon that claim has been preferred by aged father and mother who are about 65 and 60 years respectiveiy, Fo.r appiication of multjpiier their age was required to be considered. in fact learned Tribuna! has aiiowed more than the sum entitled by the appeilants, but In absence of cross appeai against the impugned award, at this juncture, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Tribuna! regardlng dependency. 7) No other polnts have been raised by Searned counsel for the appeiiants during the course of arguments. !n the resuit, the belng devoid of substance is iiabie to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed In fimlne. No cost^ y/ r" Gowri Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge