HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ‘ Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON‘BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2004 1 Chamra Ram Setia S/o Gadhadar Setia aged abosut 52 years. 2 Smt. Koushaliya W/o Chamra Ram Setia aged about 50 years. Both R/o Village Market P.S. Nagarnar Tehsil Jagdalpur, Distt. : Bastar Versus Father Samasteen S/o Zavier Ullaurekar, aged about 35 years, Rio Church Bijapur, Dist Dantewada. Father Thomas S/o Somal, aged about 40 years R/o Somal Welfare Centre, Aadawal, Jagdalpur, Dist : Bastar. The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Jagdaipur, Dis‘t : Bastar APPELLANTs (CLAIMANTS) RESPONDENTS (Non-Applicants) 1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . Present: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. p Shri Subhash Yadav, ‘counsei for resondents No.1&2. Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23m July, 2009) Q 'The following order of the Court was passed byv Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: . @ This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Jagdaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunai‘) vide award dated 08.09.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.416I2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,44,000/- claimed by the appellants] claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Somendra Setia, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his [death in the motor accident when on 20.08.2002, he was dashed by the offending vehicle Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. MP25—7142 (New No.C.G.- . 17IZEI3996), resuiting in multipie serious injuries to Somendra Setia who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur on 02-09-2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,81,800/- as'compensation along with interest @_9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of estate and in awarding low compensation of R31 ,81 ,800/-. 4) Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oreintal insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.1,81,800/— as compensation. @ 5) Shri Subhgsh Yadav, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the .award. 6) Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Somehdra Setia' used to‘eam Rs.4,000f- per month as Motor Mechanic, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal,therefore, assessed his monthly income at Rs.1,440l- per month. 7) On due consideration, we do not find any innrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 56% of the income of the deceased as he was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage his contribution to the parents would have been substantially reduced. 79) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & 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 never exceed 10. 10) ,We, therefore, do not find 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 or the multiplier selected. @ 11) Nevertheless, the Tribunal certainly has faHen into error in not awarding any sum to the ciaimants towards ioss of estate. 12) We, therefore, award a sum of Rs.5,000/— inclusive of interest to the claimants towards loss of estate. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the claimants toWards loss of estate in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,81 ,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the Oreintai insurance Company Limited, is granted two months’ time for depositing the sum of Rs.5,000/‘ now awarded to the claimants towards loss of estate, before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. / ,—/ Stu- \ Sunil Kumar Stpha Judge wow / s \ sw- i Chief Justice ti K \ subbu