r A- F-^. jfg. 9 . ^^^ ^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS: APPLiCAMTS RESPONDENT/ NON-APPLICANT M.A.Ca No.1262of200§ 1. Budha. Maiti: S/o Titu Maiti. aged about 53 years, R/o VIEJage Rautapura, P/o Ravai Sivaii, P/s Jhargram D'ssst. IViidnapur '(West BangaE) 2. Smt. Subasl Maiti, W/o Budha Maltl, agsd about 46 years, R/o Viiiage Rautapura, P/o Ravat SIvaii, P/s Jhargram, Dlsst Midnapur (VVest Bangai). Versus 1. Surgeet Singh. S/o Pratap Singh, aged about 45 years. R/o New Khursipar Bhilai, opposite of Guroodwara, Tah. and Dlstt. Durg (CG). 2. Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, W/o Narendra Slngh, R/o Sirsa road Kohka Bhifai, Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG) 3. New Indla Insurance Company Limlted, Through :- The Manager, Parakh Bhawan, Statlon road, Durg(CG) APPEAL (CLAIM) 173 OF ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Vipin Tiwari, iearned counsei for the appellants. ORDER (18th September, 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by la ^^B^SS Shri Vipln Tiwari, learned counse! for the appeilants is heard on i.A. No.01/2008, an appjication for condonation of deiay in flling theappeai. 2. On due consideration, i.A. No. 01/2008, is aliowed and the deiay in fiiing the appea! is hereby condoned. 3. Shri Vipin Tiwari, iearned counsei for the appejlants is heard on admjssion. 4. This is claimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensatlQn awarded by the 11th AdditlQnai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai (FTC), Durg (for short sthe Tribunai'), vide award dated 09.04.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No.53/2007. 5. A sum of Rs.23,20,000/- was claimed as compensation by the unfortunate parents of deceased Syamai Maiti by fiiing a claim petition under Secfion 166of the Motor Vehicies Act. Deceased Syama! Maiti, according to the claimants, died on account of the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 05.06.2006 when hs was dashed by the offendlng vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG 07-ZC/3583, resuiting In his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The daimants t'urther pieaded that their son deceased Syamai Maiti used to get salary of Rs.3,000/- per month from Balaji Enterprises. 6. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence !ed by the parties heid that ciaimants' son Syamai Maiti died on account of the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 05.06.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the of the accldent was Ensured with the New fndia insurance "% •^&s^ \z o Company Ltd., the Ensurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants 7 The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36i000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitipiier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,64,000/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs. 9,500/- under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,73,500/- as compensation to the cla'imants aiong with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petiticn ti!S the date of actuai payment. 8. Shri Vipin Tiwari, iearned counsej for the appeiiants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in seiecting the iower mujtIpSler of 11; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.2,73,500/- onty. 9. The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Syamai Maiti used to eam Rs.3,000/- per rnonth. As the Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, the ciaimants cannot have any grievance in that behalf. 10. The clalmants' dependency aiso has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting onjy the usuai 1/3rd of ths Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. The muitipiier of 11 seiected by the TribunaJ is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of i^unicipa! Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & c another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where thedaimants are parents of the deceased; the multlpiier should never exceed 10. 12. We, therefore,do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the income of the deceased or t'ne cia'imants' dependency assessed by the Tribunai or the multipSier selected. 13. The appeai fited by the clajmants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmi&sed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice ijsubbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fc-1