IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) n ^^ Appellant/: Claimant M.A.(C)N6.' OF 2008 1) Amoli Ram Sahu S/o Lt. Dani Ram Sahu aged about 50 years . 2) Graribin Bai W/o Amoli Ram Sahu aged about 45 years. both R/o Village-Anjora, Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon 'rV"^ ^ Vs. Respondents : (Driver) ^JS-^s^' .!•?Jeetendra Kumar Soni S/o Vinay Soni .-•i\ cy -^- i,-^- «,..."•' ..»?• ^'.s^' <?<y^-'"' OiS' .%• .\?i2r ^' (Owner) age about 35 years R/o Gram- Singhori, Tah.- Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) M/s Arun Agriculture Branch Bematera. ^- 2) M/S Arun Agriculture Mahendra Tractor Pulgaon Naka Durg , Tah. & Distt. Durg(C.G.)- Ifco Tokiyo Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager,Branch Offic Third Floor, 345 to 347, Lal Ganga Shoping Moll, G.E.Road Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICAL ACT-1988 (Insurer) r'ni ^.1 f*i -v'l Claimants Amoti Ram Sahu and anotnei ar Soni ai others. t'SinaSe I'Kln U Shri C.R. Sahu, Shri Abhishek Shri Rudranath No.3. sei for the appellants. F,counse! for respondents No. lukherjee, counse! for respondent nn '17th d.au "f P<'h'""anr. •*^a s i ii tui-hrii 's swa a L^3h/* .ut**a This is claimants' appeai compensation in the award dated 14-02-2008 in claim case No.34/2007 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,17,500/- has been awarded in favour of the ippei!ants/c!aimants and as against respondents aiong with interest s§ 5% per annum from the date of appiication till its recovery. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: On 17-02-2007, Durgesh Kumar Sahu (since deceased) met with an accident with motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 LD/2191 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The ciaimants/appeliants i.e. unfortunate parents of the deceased claimed Rs.4,76,800/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceassd in the said accident against the respondents by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the iVSotor Vehicies Act (for short 'the Act'). Tribuna' on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material olaced ano' submissions made, heid respondent No.1 i.e. csriver of the said vshicle responsible for the said accident; assessec !-• the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum; after deducting 50% of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the yeariy dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum; applied the multiplier of 11 and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for ioss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,17,500/- as compensation to the appetlants for the death of their son in the said accident. The learned Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. 5. Learned counsel for the appearing appellants would submit that the learned Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation which desen/es to be suitabfy enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the responctents would submit that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper Compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and the record ofthe tearned Tribunal. 8. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has rightly held respondent No.1 responsible for the said accident; based on appreciation of evidence rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month; since the claimants are parents and, therefore, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased cannot be faulted with. 9. The multipiier of 1 1 applied by the Tribunal seems to be on higher side in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cass of Municipai Coiporation of Greater Bombay vs Laxman lyerand another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 10. Further the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.14,500/- on other heads and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses and thus awarded Rs.2,17,800/- as compensation to the appellants which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. In view of foregoing, l do not find any substance in the appeal, the appeai being devoid of substance is liable to beand is hereby dismissed. N.K.Agarwal Judge Kw <-