\>" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J NNNMI Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1048 of 2011 1 Kalawati, w/o late Jaidev Maurya, aged about 40 years 2 Santosh, s/olate Jaidev Maurya, aged about 15 years (Minor) 3 Damarudhar, s/o late Jaidev Maurya, aged about 16 years (Minor) Appellant No.2 & 3 through next friend guardian mother Kalawati, w/o late Jaidev Maurya All r/o Badegudapara Gadhiya, Lohandiguda, PS Lohandiguda, Distt Bastar (CG) VERSUS 1 Bholashanker, s/o Shivlal, 21 years, r/oBailabazarpara, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar (CG) (Driver) 2 Indrajit Singh, s/o Satyanarayan Singh, aged about 23 years, r/o Bodhghat, Jagdalpur Distt , Bastar CG (Owner of vehicle) 3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd.,^ Branch Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar 4 Sanjay Kumar Patnayak, s/o (not known to appellant) r/o Maharani Ward Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar, CG 5 Narayan Singh Maurya, s/o Late Jaidev Singh Maurya.Aged about 25 years, r/o Bastanar, Tahsil - Bastanar, Distt Bastar (CG) <<<''3T8%..\ .^'y^''^ .•7 if ~* ^ st' lfeT!''B~'3a» S I, vss£%i 'K %--^/ \'t!!fe-»£^f!f'' M.A.C.NO. 1048 Of 2011 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (17th October, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.06.2011, passed in Claim Case No.428/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.28,43,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother and brothers of deceased Bhupendra Maurya by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 01.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- ,as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing Qf the claim petition till the date of actual payment. • ^- 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entireevidence led before it held respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, iri&urer of the offending vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing g.J M.A.C.No. 1048 of 2011 "R registration No. C.G.-18C/0511, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per anrium. By deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Bhupendra Maurya in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal'expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- only. ^- 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bhupendra Maurya used toearn Rs.4,400/- per month by working as Hamal in a tent house, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for estaBlishing the income of-the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,400/- per month. For the reasons best known to the li, M.A.C.No.1048of2011 claimant^even the employer of the deceased was not examined before the Tribunal in that behalf. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8) Considering that deceased Bhupendra Maurya on the date of the accident was unmamed, the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed andothers Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases121 . 9) As the claimants are mother and brothers of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 is perfectly inline with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation 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 multiplier should never exceed 1 0. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either <r*~ on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. ^S^^tSS.—^SS^S^. r n MAC.No. 1048 of 2011 11) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice R.KI. subbu Sd/.ss^ <N-