HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV!SJON BENCH CORAiVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & KON'BLE SHRi SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc Appeai No.720/2003 ADpelSants \- 1 Saxman Singh S/o Sarjuram Tarak Aged about 52 years 2 Amolabai, W/o Laxman Singh Tarak, Aged about 50 years. 3 Ku. Usha D/o Laxman Singh Tarak, Aged about 26 years 4 Ku.Neeta D/o Laxman Singh Tarak Agedabout 17years. 5 Ku. Ravti Raman D/o Laxman Singh TakraAged about 15 years, appellants No.4 & 5 represented by legal guardian father Laxman Singh, Permanent Address - Vili Champa PO Birkonl, Distt - !\4ahasamund, Present address Near Kota Stadium, Raipur (CG) Versus 1 Khursed Ahmad S/o Abdul Hamjd Sakin Raja Talab, Noorani Chowk Raipur (CG) 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divjsionai Manager, The Oriental Jnsurance Co.Ltd., Kutohhery Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur Mlsc Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicle Act. 1973 Respondents Present : Shri AL Singraui, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (23rd October, 2008) The foElowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This Is claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act^ 1988 (for short, 'the Act') for enhancement of the M \. ' . L compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Ralpur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 20.03.2003 In Ciaim Case No.51/2002 2) The cEaimants, unfortunate parents, and sisters of deceased Suryapratap claimed compensation of Rs.13,36,000/- by filing a cSaim petition under Section 166 of the Act for his death in the motor acddent on 20.05.2002, when the motorcycle on which deceased Suryapratap was travelling as a pillion rider was dashed by the offending vehide jeep bearing registration No.CG 04 ZA 2300, resulting ln his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Suryapratap was getting satary of Rs.9,000/- per month from Indian Army. 3) The ovi/ner and insurer of the offending vehicie jeep contested the daim and denied their IJabHity to pay compensation to the c!aimants on the piea that the motorcydist himself was responsjble for the accident. The insurer took the further plea that the being plied in breach of the poEicy conditions and the driver ofthejeep not holding a valid driving license. 4) The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the he!d that deceased Suryapratap died on account of the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 20.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving ofthe driver of the offendlng vehlde jeep; as the offending vehicle jeep, on the of the accident v/as Insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the c!aimants. :-'s. lte '"^te^^ \.- .Y 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,956/- per month and Rs.59,472 per annum. By deductlng 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.39,648/- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.39,648/- with the muitjplier of 9, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,56,832/-. By awardlng further sum of Rs.2.000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,58,832/- as compensatlon to the claimants for the death of deceased Suryapratap in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,58,832/- from the date of the filing of application til! the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AL Singraul, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.3,58,832/- awarded by the Tribunai is too !ow as the deceased wou!d have support to appeiiants No.1 & 2, who are parents of the deceased In their o!d age. 7) Though.the daimants pieaded that deceased Suryapratap to earn Rs.9,000/- per month, the satary certificate (Ex.P/16), produced before the Tribuna! revealed his salary as Rs.4,956/- per month on!y. As the Tribunai has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,956/- per month on the basis of saiary certiflcate adduced In evidence by the claimants themseives, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the Income of the deceased by the Tribunal. ^••'^ \ ""^ 4 c^ ^. / \ "-^. 8) The daimants' dspendency assessed by the TribunaS at Rs.39,648/- per annum by deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the towards his personat expenses is rather on the higher side in vlew of the dictum of the Apex Court Sn the case of Donat Louis Machado & others Vs L Ravlndra and others, reported in 2000 (1) TAC 208 (SC) wherein 11 was held that the deceased being un-married person and the ciaimants being his parents, the dedudion towards personal expenses could be up to 2/3rd of the income ofthe deceased. 9) Consldering the age of the father and mother of the deceased, who were among the claimants and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the caseof Munidpa! Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs Laxnnan Syer and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, whereln it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiptier should never exceed 10, we do not flnd any infirmity In the selection of muttiplier of 9 by the Tribuna! in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the clalmants' dependency by the Tribunat or the mu!tjp!ier selected. 11) The appea! fiied by the appeJIants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is Ssable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. padma Sd/- Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge