ORDER Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. : 1. Shri A. V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 0 1/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09-05-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 24912007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.10,86,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Jagdish Gond for his death in the motor accident on 07-05-2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,54,500/- as compensation along with interest@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri A. V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,54,500/only. 8. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Jagdish Gond used to earn Rs.150 - 200/- per day as labour, the evidence of his employer before the Tribunal was to the effect that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.60 - 70/- per trip. The Tribunal on a thorough consideration of the entire evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned award, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting only the usuall/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. 10. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting only the usuall/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kalpana and others 1 , wherein the multiplier of 13 was found appropriate for the deceased who was aged about 33 years. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Appeal Dismissed.