HSGH COURT OFCHHATTLSGARH AT BSLASPUR DjVISSQN BENCH CORAiVJ: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HGN'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHAS^DRAKAR,J ADpeilant CSaimants RespQRdents Driver Owner Insurer SVIIsc. Appeai (CS No.11S5/2007 1 Sunderia! Tirkey, S/o Debar Tirkey, aged about 52 years 2 Kameia Tirkey.. W7o Sunderlal Tirkey, aged about 43 years Both R/o B.T.i. Chowk, Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur, Hai Mukam Kartaka, Korba (CG) Versus 1 Harnam Slnah, S/o Gutab Slnah Choudhary, aged about 35 years 2 Ajmer Singh, S/o Bhoia Singh Both R/o Saman Thana Meham, Distt. Rohtak, (Haryana) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Through Djvisiona! Manager, Office Korba (CG) Appeal under Section 173 i2} of Mofor Vehlcie Act. 1988 Present : Shri Punit Ruparei, counsei forthe appeiiants. ORDER ?th (27tn January, 2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Punit Ruparel, learned counsei for the appetiants is heard on admission. ^^^i^. 2) The appeltants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, (for short the 'Tribunal') Korba vide award dated 28.06.2007, passed in claim case No.47/2006. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- claimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Shailee Swapna Tirkey, by fiiing a claim petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accldent on 23.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,85.000/- as compensation along with interest @. 9% per annum from the date of filing of the clalm petition till the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri Punit Ruparel, tearned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred J.'i awarding iow compensatlon of Rs.1,85,000/- only. 5) True, the claimants pieaded that their daughter Shailee Swapna Tirkey, who was aged about 19 years, used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from tuition, knitting and embroidery, but the evidence led in that behsif was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, was left with no other optlon but to assess her income on its own estimate. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed her Income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 6) The Trlbuna! has been quite libera! in deducting pnly 1/3rd of the income of fhe deceased towards her personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% ^ \^ ;j; i of the Incomeof the deceased, in view of the dictum of the apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohammed Jameei and another,reported in (2009) 2 SCC -225. 7) The multipller of 16 seiected by the Tribunal Is certainly on the higher side in view of the dictum of the apex Court in the case of Munlcipal Corporatlon 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 multlplier should never exceed 10. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appetjants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu