HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR.J M.A.(ClNo.281 of 2010 Appeilants Claimants 1. Chihtaram @ Sitaram Markam, S/o. Samaru Marksma, aged about 43 years, Caste-Gada. , 2. Smt. Sonbatti Bai Markam, W/o. Chintaram @ Sitaram Markam, aged about 40 years.Caste - Gada Both R/o. Village - Gaourgaon, Police Station - Malnpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondent Non-applicants 1. Sethi Singh, S/o. Gurucharan Singh, aged abbut 32 years, R/o. Near Naya Shiv Mandir, Pandri, Raipur, Police Station—Mowa, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Driver & registerfed owner of vehicle Truck bearing ^ registration No. C.G.04ZC/6524) s 2 The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divlsional Office, Ralpur, Dlstrict- Raipur(C.G.) (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registrationNo. C.G.04/ZC/6524) Miscellaneous Appeal u/s173 of the Molor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel forthe appellants. ORDER rth (17m Mareh,2010) L^- The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an appllcation for condonatjon of the deiay in filing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfled that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delayin filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/ 2010, therefore, is allowed and the deiay.of 51 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, tearned counsel for the appellants 1s heardon admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Gariyaband, District Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.26/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.30,30,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Omprakash, by fillng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor .Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,17,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fillng of the claim petition tilt the dateof actual payment; 3 l:"y 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs. 28,800/- per annum only: in selecting lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Omprakash used to eam Rs.7,500/- per month by running a klrana shop, the evidence led in that behalf was not of ctinching nature. In fact, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any shop at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding thectaimants' evidence aboutthe income of the deceased and inassessing his income on its own estimate at Rs. 2,4001- per month and Rs. 28,800/- per annum. 9) The Tribunal has been quite Itberal in deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 10) The muitlpiier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with consldering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the ciaimants are parentsofthe deceased.the muitiplier should never exceed 1 0. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhaneement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deeeased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the muitipiier seiected. 12) The appeal filed by the appetlants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissedand is hereby dismissed summarily^ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/. ;; ' R.N.Chandrakar Judge s.