IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $6g M.A. (C)NO. "''" / 2008 Appellants •? ^' ^- Versus Bespondents ^ t^ '^ ^ ^'••^ ^" Mohit Nirmalkar, S/ o Dheluram Nirmalkar, Aged about 44 years, Keja Bai, W/o Mohit Nirmalkar, Aged about 42 years, Both R/o Ward No.7, Ahiwara, Post - Ahiwara, P.S.-Nandani, Tahsil - Damdha, Distt.: Durg-(C.G.) Ramesh Kumar Nishad, S/o Ishwar Nishad, Aged about 22 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Ward No.-6, Ahiwara, Post - Ahiwara, P.S.-Nandani, Tahsil Damdha, Distt.: Durg-(C.G.) Driver of Truck (Dumper) C.G.07-C-3093 Ashok Kumar Bafna, S/o Parasmal Bafna, Aged about Not Known, BothR/oWardNo.l, Ahiwara, Post - Ahiwara, P.S.-Nandani, Tahsil Damdha, Distt.: Durg-(C.G.) Owner of the Truck (Dumper) C.G.07-C-3093. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Office - 2nd Floor, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur-(C.G.). Divisional Office - Thakkar Chamber, G.E.Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg-(C.G.) Insurer—ofthe Vehicle. © © ^ MISC.APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 r CLAIiVSANTS (CI N0. 888 OF 2008' Mohlt Nlrmaikar & anbther. Versiis Ramesh Kumar Nishad.and others. U/S 173 OF THE ACT. 1988 iSinale' Bench: S-lon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaa.refai. J.s : Shri S.K. Guha, counsel fbr the appedant. Shri Rakesh Dubey, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. on 18 day of February, 2i Th.is 1s cjaimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in the award dated 19-09-2007 by Eleventh AddJtJongl Motor Acddent Ctelms Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') jn CIaim Case No.2/2007 whereby and vvhereunder. an amoiint of Rs.2,05,000/- has been awarded jn favour of the appeliants/claimants and as agajnst thejespondents holding them ilabJe for payment of compensation jojntiy or severaHy along with 6% per annum frorn the date ofappjication. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: That Santosh Kumar (deceased) on 17-01-2007, met with an accident wifh Dumper bearing registration No. CG 07-C/3093 as a resujt of whlch he succumbed to the injuries in the accident. 3. The appeilants unfortunate parents of the deceased flied dajm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehsdes Act,1988 (for sllort 'the Act') ciaimjng Rs.5,30,000/- as compensation for the death oftheir son i.e. deceased in the sald accident. 6- 4. The learned Tribuna! on close scrutiny of the evidence led, materiaE piaced and submlsslons made, heid respondent N o.1 responsEble for the sald accldent; assessed the Income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum; deducted 2/3rd of It towards personal expenses of the deceased; appiied muitipEier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of Eoss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on other heads and thus awarded a tots! sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensatlon for the death of the deceased In the said accident. 6. Learned counse! appearing for the appejlants/daimants •would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3 jn piace of haif of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus awarded fow compensation. 7. Per contra, Eearned counsei appearing for respondents would submjt thst even if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the decessed and muStlpj'er of 10 is appEied; as Is appijcable in case of death of unmamed son where clalmants are parents, then amount wouid be even iess that the amount awarded by the jearned Tribuna! and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribuna! does not ca!! for any interference and the same deserves to be uphejd. 8. I have heard iearned counsej for the parties, perused the award impugned and the record of the Tribunai. 9. Hon'bie the Supreme Court In the case of Municlpal Coi'poi'ation of Greater Sombsy vs Laxman iyer and anoffier, reported in (2093) 8 SCC 731, has held that in those cases where the cjaimants are parents of the deceased, the muitipiier should never exceed 10. 10. jn vlew of the dictum of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the above referred case, it wouid be crystai clear that where parents are daimants and the deceased is their unmamed son, in those cases, the mujtipjier cannot exceed 10 and by deducting 50% of ^y Kvr the Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the yeariy ioss of dependency would be 18,000/- per annum and if multipljed by multipEier of 1 0, then the compensation towards toss of dependency wouid be 1 ,80,000/- which is same as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is also just and reasonable. 11. In view of above, l do not find any substance in the appeai fjied by the appeiiant. Therefore, the appeal being devold of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge