§-§§GH S§UR? 9F CHHQTTISGARR 1%? ESL£§§3R EIWSKEN EEIQCH SQRAJM: HSN’BLE SEE} RA§EEV GUFFA, (Li {SENEL KlgMi—XR $§NB€A§ J. LIA ”D! C §Li Uhg— Gil IIV‘ Ragnanéea% May. wur I-Cla%manLS I s PFEsent I M Nai'endra $§ngh. ate Shgrda rLaSnzu nun ad oilign, O'n k nannl a9: ninan‘ auum EO \Ju u y€af$ $mt Siia Eevi Wlo Narendfa smah. agEd abGEJt ‘10 Ao yuala KL; Naiam Singh, Die Narendra Smgh. .vmA agcu abGvii. . a- aa 4i ‘ycm§ u. A}? apgaaéants are We Mu Cha3, Ward $‘éo.14, Ragnandgacn, Tah 8: D§3it — Rajnandgaon {CG) "/0 A w‘ Hameep Singh S/c Pyara Sinan Bazba, aged ébaut 33 years, R70 Budhnagaa’, near the Budh vihar. Rot No.4 ’57, Nagaur {Maharashtra} Nationai énsurance Cemnanv Ltd, a' v u la L ”mg” the Bmnch Manager, Vemheman Nagar, Nagpuf — 8 {MH} Wise. geeeai ensier SecEEon ’éf’3 a? the Mega? VehEcEee KCu It a. vac rma $hri Awadh T‘rigaathi ane‘ Shri Sanjeev Benjare, counsei for me aeeeilante. None fer'resmndeni No.1. Shri Dasafath Gupta, counee§ for ¥espondené No.2. misc. gneeai we. ‘é ’é2§ o? 2%3 A.P.R\, v I\J= The maiawing emer o? the (3mm was pasged by Raieev Qinia. Cm. The appeHants are $eeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Meier Accideni Cieims Tribuna‘li L Rainandqaon (for snort ‘ihe Trieunal’) vide award dated 14.0?.2OG3. eassed in C§aim Case No.1 E4f2QGS. 2} Ae against the compensaiien of Re.8,8?,5GU/- ciaémed by the appeilants/c!aimants,'unfortunate payente and‘ younger sister of deceased Ami Kumar Singh bv *fiiing a ciaim petiiion under Seciien 1166 of the Momr Vehacies Aoi. fer his deaih in the meter accidenr on {33.11.2609 the ‘?‘ribunai awarded a teta! sum of Rs.2,13,5§€3~i— as comeensation aiong with 3nterest ($9. 9% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the eiaim petition tiii the eate ef aeteai payment. 3) Shri Awadh Tripathi and $hri Sanieev §anjare5 iearned ceunsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribune! has erred in awarding iow campensatien ct Rs2,13,5t‘3€ti— oniy. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Nationai tnsurance Company Limited on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberai in awarding substantiai amount of Rs.2.t3.50§/‘— as compensation to the SigimamS. 5i The ciaimants cannot have any iegitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rafi .85GI- oer month, as the saiary certificate produced by them before the Tribunai estabtished the saiary ot" the deceased to the extent of Rsi .823l- oer month oniv. @‘ ! "w ‘ E) The Tribuna§ has been qu’ate iiberal in deduaing iess €han 5§% of the inceme cf the deceased towards his pemmai expenses ihough the c§eduction in that behalf cowd have been ta the extent sf 50% of ihe income of the deceasee in View of the recent dictum 0f the Apex Ceurt ‘in the cese of $yed Eesheer ethemed and; athefe tie Mehammed Jemeet amt emitter reported in (2@$§} 2 $upreme Seer: ¢eses 225. 7} The muitipiier,of 1'7 selected by the Ttibunai is also 0n the V higher side in View of the fact that the ctaimante are parents of the Ldeceesed and in View ef the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ’r tuhtctpeE‘CetpGtatton o? Gt'eeter Bombay tfs taxman iyer stag? enether, teported in {2%3} 3 SQC-TE'3‘E, wherein it was hetd that in thoee cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the muttipiier should never exceed 1Q 8) For the foregotng reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement 0t the compensation either on account ot the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the ciaimantsi dependency by the Trthunat, or the mutttpiier setected. 9‘) The appeai fiied by the epoeiiantsicieimants tor enhancement of the compensation, therefote, Es iiabie to be dtsmissee‘ and is hereby dismissed. 1G) No order as to costs. 4"'#ee'—--ff"*”#’r ‘ Sci/- iChief Justice subbu k