^^0^., f'"bM? M^o f^f//c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIgGAftH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Ci P.R.No. 3310 of 2009 Jawaharlai Kashyap, S/o. Achchheram, aged about 44 years. Smt. Bhagwati, W/o. Jawaharial Kashyap, aged about 40 years. Ku. Nandni Kashyap, D/o. Jawaharlal, aged about 05 years, Minor through legal guardian father Jawaharlal Kashyap. All R/o. through Ramchandra Kashyap, village & Post Godadih, P.S. Pachpedi, Tashil - Masturi, District Bitspur (CG). VERSUS Rahul @ Shashi, S/o. Giju Yadav,R/o. Near Water Filter, Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Bhojram, S/o. Chhotelal Gupta, R/o. Gupta Pan Bhandar, near Kotwali Chowki, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, though Branch Manager, Branch Office third floor, Laiganga Shopping Compiex G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsll & District Bilaspur (CG). Misc.ADpea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Pfesent: Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri AC Sahu, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (05th February, 2010) The following order of the Court was passKJ by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri AC Sahu, leamed counsel for theappetlants are heard on tA No.1/20C©,an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfled that the appeltants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause forthe delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/^)09,therefore,is allowed and thejdelay of 15 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Seeond Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.08.2009, passedin Claim CaseNo.93/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10,65,0(X)/-clatmed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunateparents and younger sister of deceased Jagannath Prasad, by filing a claim petition ynder Section 166 of the MotorVehieles Aet, for hiscteath iij> the motor accident on 08.02.2008, theTribunalawarded a tqtal sum of Rs.2,48,000/- as compensation^ along ^^ jnteresit @1'686 PSI'] annum frorathe date Qftfiling o|t!i|||te^ actualpayment. titljttied^te.ot ili ;^!: IE ^ 7< 7) Shri Goutam KtietFapal and Shri AC Sahu. JeamaJ counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in notacceptihg the claimants' evidenceaboutthe income offlie deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annumonly; in selecting the Ipwer multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,48,000/-only. 8) True, the Claimants pleaded that their son deceased Jagannath Prasad used to eam Rs.6,000/- per month as Electrician, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal considering th^t the deceased wasaged about 22 years andwas a student of B Se Part - I, assessed his income at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9) On due consideratton,we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/-per monthand Rs.30,000/-perannum: 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd Qf the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction inthat behalfcould have been tothe extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in view of the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case ofSyed Basheer|Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009)2SupremeCourtCases225. ' 11) The multiplieFof 10 selected by tl'ie Tnbijnal cannot fouhd feultwithGpnstdeFing?|^af^e;il^ ;aeceased.ancliin:^i^^ ie|%ic^tTO^c)^t|i|Kp^?p<purt^in feje Gaise )?ira c^ tl .-.fe subbu of Municlpal Carporaffon ofGreaferBomfeay Vs. Laxman lyer ancf anotfter, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein itwas held that in those cases where the clalmants are parents of the deceased, the multipliershould never exceKl 10. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of thecompensation eitheron account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the clalmante' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier seleeted. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore,| is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sdi- ...„ ,^3y<aiWar | R-l-^d8e l ;h«