HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HOI^'BLE SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1463 of 2008 Clalmants before the Tribuna! Non-applScgnt before the Tribuna! 1. Bohai Das Manlkpuri, S/o. Shri Khorbahra, aged about 53 years, 2. Smt. Duiasiya Bai, VV/o Shri Bohai Das, aged about 50 years, Both R/o Viilage - Bhunda, P.S. Kota Tahsil, Takhatpur, distt. Bilaspur. Versus 1. Somnath Ji Huie, S/o Babu Rao, about 35 years R/o Chakarpude, P.S. Chakarpude, Distt. Pune (Maharastra) at present R/o DwariKa Nath, Waman Bhagatsad, 1/6 Tukaram Nagar, Ahiri Road, Domboii East Thande, P.S. Thande, Dist. Thande (Maharastra) 2. Jeru Jal Bagii S/o. Not known R/o No. 4 Parwati Complex, in front of Durgesh Park caii her, wiii Bhivvandi, P.S. Karad Taiuka (Gramin) Dist. Satara Maharastra. 3. Branch Manager, The Orientai Assurance Company Limlted, 112202 B.O. No. 12, indian Merchant Chamber, 1st Fioor B East, Mumbai, 400001 / High Court Road, Sn front of Rajlv Plaza Ram Trade Center; distt. Bllaspur (C.G.) MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL SECTION 173 OF THg MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present Shri N.K. appellants. ChatSerjee, iearned counsei for the ^ / € ^^s^ (?1^ 'Y ORDER ind (22"G September, 2009) The fbiiowsng order of the Court was passed by Gupta, CJ.: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appeiiants is heard on i.A. No. 01/2008, an appiication for condonation of the delay in fiiing the appeai. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsei for the appejiants and the grounds taken in the appfication; we are satisfied that the appeilants/ claimants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay In fiiing the appeai. 3. I.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 66 days in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsei for the appelEants is heard on admission. 5. The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Addltionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 19.03.2008, passed in CiaSm Case No.290/2007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.14,85,0007- claimed by the appeiiants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Laiiu Das by filing a ciaim petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accident on 27.07.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tlll the date of actuai payment. ;^^^%^ ^•ij^x''"%, ^:~ ^r^^^ "^, f &. •' % 1 I v^ 7. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, iearned counsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awardlng iow compensatlon of Rs.2,10,000/-only. 8. True, the ciaimants pleaded that their son deceased Laliu Das used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a helper on the Tempo, no cogent and reliabie evidence was adduced before the Tribunai to estabiish the income of the deceased to that extent. Neither the owner of the Tempo nor the driver of the Tempo was examined by the claimants before the Tribunal to estabiish that the deceased was working as helper on the Tempo and was getting saiary of Rs.5,000/- per month. 9. in this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal a.t Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10. The Tribuna! has been quite liberal in deductlng oniy 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses thouah the deduction In that behaif couid have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased on the date of the accident v^as unmamed and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents wouid have been reduced substantiaily. 11. The muitipfier of 10 seiected by the Tribunal cannot be found fauit wlth in view of the fact that the ciaimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVIynielpaE Corporaflon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherdn it was heid that in those cases where the daimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier shouid never exceed 10. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribuna! or the muitipiier selected. 13. The appeai filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summariSy, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimrni