F-R.. HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARH ATBItASTOR DIVISIONBENCH Coram HON'BI.E SHRI FUUEEVQUPTA, CJ. & HON'Bt.ESHRIT.P.SHARM^A A APPELLANTS Clalmants Q: RESPONDENTS M.A. No.^90FMOS 1. Ram Gopal Namdeo, S/o. Late Matadln Namdeo, Aged about 56 years, 2. Smt. Tarabai Namdeo, W/o. Ram Gopal Namdeo, Aged about 50 years 3. Ku. Maya, Dlo. Ram Gopal Namdeo, Aged 22 yesu's 4. Ku. Geeta Namdeo, D/o. Ram Gopal Namdeo, Aged 19 y^ire 5. PankajKumar Namdeo, S/o Ram Gopal Namdeo, Agpd about 15 years Appellant no. 5 minor through Natural Guardtan father App^lant no.1 All R/o Through Rajesh Namdeo, Viilage Kenda Police Chowrio Belghana, P.S. Kota, Tahsit Belghana, Bttaspur(C.G.) Versus 1. Budhram Gond,S/o Momlal Gond, Aged about 42 yeas, Wo Harritola, P.S. Gourella, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Pratap Khatri, S/o Laxmichaod Kh^ri, R/6 fa.ts Stanct,.Penelra P.S. Pendra, Tah. Pandraroad, Dlsst. - Bllaspur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental lnsurance©ompany Ltd. Throi^h Diviskinsil Manager, Branch Offlce, Opposfte High Couft, Tahsll and Dlstrict Bilaspyr <C.GO THEMOTORVeBnCt.E&ft^T.ljaatt n /-. Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamed counsel for the appeltante. Nonefor respondents No. 1 and2. ShriVarunendraMisftra,teamedC(»tn^lonbeha of Shri B.D. GUN, leamed counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (20m February,2009} The following order of the Court WE® passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Firet Actelitional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bllaspur (for short the Tribunal') wde award dated 07.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No.50SOC@. 2) The claimants, unfortunate parents, sistere and brofrier of deceased Komal Namdeo ctaimed compensation of Rs.21,51,640/- by filing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accldent on 04.08.20)3 whenWs bicycle was dashed by theoffending vehicle bus bearing registration No. C.G.10 ZA/0138, resulting in hfe instantaneous death on the spot Itself. The claimants farther pleaded thatdeceased tomal Namdeo was aged about25 years and used to eam Rs.AOOf- per day by selling readymade garments. 3) Thedriver, owner and Insurerof theoffendlng veNcteBus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensaUon to the claimants on the ptea that deeeased Komal Namdeo himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer took the furtherplea that the driver of the bus was nof holding a valld driving licence and the Bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4) The claimants examined A.W./1 Ram Gopal Namdeo and A.W.^ Kamalkant Shukla in su^)ort of their claim, whereas the driver, owner and insurer of the offendlng vehicle Bus did not examine any wifness in rebuttal. 5) The Trfbunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Komal Namdeo diect on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.08.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthedriver of offending vehicle Bus; as the offending vehiGle Buson the dateof the accident was insured with the Orientat Insurance Company Limited, the tnsurance Company was llable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the decKSed at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/4th of Rs.30,0£X)/- towards the personal expaises of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.22,500/- perannum. By multiplytng the anntial dependencyof Rs.22,500/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensaUon was worked out to Rs.2,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants fbr the derth of deceased Komal Namdeo in the motor aeGklenton 04.08.2003. The Tribunal further dfrected payment of interest @ 9% per w annum on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.2,90,000/- from the date of flling of the claim petltlon tjll the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamed counsel Torthe appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has errect m not aeceptlr^ the claimants' evidence about the ineomeofthe decea^dand in assessing hls ircome at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,90,OOOA.onIy. 8) Shri Varunendra Mishra, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal inawareling Rs.2,90,000/- ascompensation to the daimants. 9) The findings recorded by theTribunal that deceased Kemat Namdeo died onaccount of the mjuries sustained by htin in the motor accident on 04.08.2003; the driverofthe offendtng vehicle Bus was responsible for the accident; and the Insurw of the offending vehiGle Bus was llable ;to pay compensation to fte claimants have nowattained finality as the respond»itshave not fited any appeal against Ihe award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidenceavailabte on record for establisMng the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 10) True, the Glaimantspteaded that deceased Komal Namdeo used to eam Rs.400/- per day by selling readyroade garmente, but ;'^. no clinching evidence was led for establishing the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income ofthe deceased by the Tribunat at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,WO/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal hasbeen quite liberal in deducting only 1/4 of the income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses. The deduction in that behalf could have been to fhe extent of 2/3"' in view of thedictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravlndra andothers,: reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), as deceased Komal Namdeowas unmamed on the date of the accident and would have been married In due course and after the marriage his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substentially. 12) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tnbunal Is rather on the higher side In vlew of the dictum of the Apex Gourt in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bomfaay Vs. Laxman tyer & 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 10. 13) The Tribunal has been quite Itberal in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads. 14) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on accountof the asse^ment of the income ofthe deceased or the cteimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multlplierselected. 6 subbu ^-^' 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.p. Sharrna ^judge