^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. vc\ Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No.1585 of 2008 1 Laxminarayan, s/o late Baratram Sahu, aged 54 years, occupation Agriculturist, r/o Gohodidipa, Thana Pusour, Tahsil Raigarh (CG) 2 Mu. Tarawati, w/o Laxminarayan Sahu, aged 47 years, Occupation - Housewife, r/o Gohodidipa, Thana Pusour, Tahsil Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1 Ravikumar Soni, s/o Ashok Kuamr Soni, Occupation - Tractor Driver, R/o K^bir Chowk, Raigarh Chowki, Jute Milt, District - Raigarh (CG) 2 Devnath Singh, S/o t^pildev Singh (Owner of the vehicle), Occupation - Driver r/o Kabir Chowk, Raigarh Chowki, Jute Mill, District - Raigarh 3 Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Limited, Metro House, 4 Floor, Wani Vihar, Bhuvneshwar (Orissa) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Vasim Miya, counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. 'y ^c ORDER (20th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.08.2008, passed in Claim Case No.78/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,80,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Pitambar Sahu by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 09.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,86,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.CG-13/A/7.540 and CG-13/A/7541 liabte to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked. .-.J-—, ..-3 ^i "'a.as..^ S ^*eusSS& I % ' ''W} i' 's^s'y../ ^L\ out to Rs.2,64,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,86,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for thedeath of their son deceased Pitambar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Vasim Miya, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month only, whereas the salary certificate produced by the claimants before the Tribunal established the income ofthe deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. 6) Shri Amit Sharma, leamed counsel for respondents No.1 Ravikumar Soni and No.2 Devnath Singh, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Tractor - Trotley supported the award. 7) The claimants pleaded that their son deceased Pitambar Sahu used to earn Rs.4,700/- per month as driver whereas the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.3,OCX)/- per month. Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month as certified in his salary certificate Ex.P/10 the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.2,250/- per month as 50% of Rs.4,500/- is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Oourt in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed f,) A •'^-:-y ....-^' Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121; as the claimants are parents of the deceased the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 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 claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation would work out to Rs.2,70,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expensesand Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation, which is less than the sum of Rs.2,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sdi- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge /7 ^ 'l/ padma