^ HJGHGOURT'^eWI-l^'T^IS^RH^'iBIL.^SRUR DIVStlONBENCN CORA ^^ 1^^ . HQN^Bt.EBHRilR^ ADpelJants Claimants IVIisG.ADDeal{CtNo.842of^010 11-::'-.~':/':.^";,'1..^'.-.;'.;'';^^ 1^^^^^ ^ Randey, ag€dab@yt45years. 2 iSmtXPakIj Bai, jV^^ Panciey,agedabout42years. AIJ above R/o viltage Nakdi^ P^ Stati6rTfBiiahpuri,jT"ahsJIKGndagaon, DisitFict Bastar (G©), ':vi^ys':.::.;';.''.'i,'-l:;' 1. iBhin Kastiyap, aged atoout 27'years^^ l^utpadaFRara, j Makdi^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ P Station Bhanpun, Djstrict ^astar ^. ^he Grien^ " Limlted, ©fficeatli^ain RoaGi, $adar Bazar, ,ja|datpur,| Tahsii Jagciatpur, .rDiS(ric^^Bastar,<C@)'.::^-1 ••:-:^;:'''':;:'-^ MlsceJlaneousAg^eaiuXSI^bftheMotc^^h ResR^ncleiit^ NQri-a{?plJcants Present: Shri K4artoj Paranjp^&^ '^r';the::appetlants.f|''ll-3;:.?'^.r,)'?^,-,^:..^ ORDER (1st 13eceml?er, 2010) T'he fQliowin^ •Ra|eey;^up<a,;CJI.,^^.^;;^^':'.^:l.ll^^ ^'•: 1i:h; hs. '^' The appeliants are .seeklng enhancement^^^^^^ o^^ the compensatibn awarded hy the AdditiQnal MofoFAccicIent Ciaims Tribunal, l<ondagaon,distnct Bastar^ 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 23.06.2010, passedinGlarmCaseNo.^ 2) As against the compensation pf Rs.1,0^ by the appellants/ claimants, unfbrtunate pai'ents of deeeased GaneshPandeybyfilingaclaimpetitipnynderSe(^ion166o^^^^ Motor. Vetijcles Act, for tiis death in, the motor accident on 09.0S.2008, ieTribunalawarcledatotalsumofRs.1,87,QOO/-as compensation alongwith interest @6% perahnum fromthedate offilingoftheclaimpetitiontiHthedateofactualpayment. 3) The Tribunat assessed the ineQme of Rs.3,(X)Q/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Bydeducting 50% of Rs.36^00/- towards the personall expenses^ deceased, the claimants' dependency was asse^^^ Rs.18,QOO/-perannum.Bymultipiyingtheannualdependencyof Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the ;compensation was worked out to Rs,1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunat awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as CQropensation to the claimants forthexieath oftheirsonGaneshPancleyinthemotpracGident.TheTribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensationQfRs.1,87,OQQ/-@6%perannumfromthedateof filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. ©• ^-. 4)ShriManoijParanjpeandShriVikramDixit,leamedcounsel foFtheappellantsvehementlyarguedthattheTribunaihaserreci in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the incQme of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per morith andRs.36,000/-perannumonly,indeducting50%ofthemcome of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-only. 5) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Ganesh Pandey usedto earn Rs.15,000/- per montii by running a Kirana Shop, no documentary evldence such as license etc.; was produced before the Tribunal to establish that claimants' son Ganesh Pandey was running any shop at all. In this state ofeviderace,we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal i in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income 6n- its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, 6) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses aiso cannot be found fauit with considering that deceased Ganesh Pandey was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage hiscontribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaily and in yiew of the dictum of the ,Apex Court in the case of Syed Basiheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. ^i"' -\^ ;& nimmi 7) As the ciainiants are parents of the deceased the multiplier of10selectedbytheTribunalisperfect!yin!iriewiththedjctumof the Apex Court in the case pf Miinicipal Corporaffpn of Greater Bombay Vs, Laxman lyer and another, reporiM \n (2003) 8 SCG-731, wherein ^it was held that in those jcases where the ciaimants are parents of e deceased, thel multjpiier should neverexceed 10. - 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not frnd any scope fdr enhancement of the compensatipn awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal fjled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation,therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismi^ed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge