HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Misc. Aopeal ( C 1 No. 146/2009 RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS DIVISION BENCH: HON»BLESHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA 8s HON»BLESHRI JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA APPELLANTS 1. Ram Shankar Kaushik, s/o Late Dau CLAIMANTS Ram Kaushik, aged about 44 years, 2. Smt. Neera Devi Kaushik, w/o Shri Ram Shankar Kaushik, aged about 42 years Both R/o Tarda, Post 8s District Korba(CG) Versus 1. Sirajuddin Ansari, s/o Illhar Ansari aged about 48 years, R/o Pichda Mond, Police Station Sukhdev Nagar, District Ranchi(Jhharkhand) (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/ZC-1571) 2. Anil Kumar, s/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Near Bagga Hotel, Dhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur(CG) (Owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/ZC-1571) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Geetanjali Bhawan, Korba, District Korba(CG) Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZC-1571). APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 M.A.(C.) 146/200& Appearance : Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (04.02.2009) The following order of the Court is passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District Korba (CG) in Claim Case No.58/2006 on 21.11.2008. The appellants/claimants are the parents of deceased- Manju Kaushik, who died in the motor accident on 8.9.2005 when her Scooty bearing registration No.CG 10E 5862 was dashed by the offending vehicle- Truck bearing registration No.CG 04 ZC 1571. The appellants/claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,98,60,288/-. The deceased was a student of Homeopathic College. The claimants calculated loss of income on account of future earnings of the deceased, which she would have earned after becoming a Homeopathic Doctor. Since the evidence relating to the income/loss of earning was not of clinching nature, the Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 to the said notional income after deducting l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation ofRs.1,80,000/-. It appears that Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded towards loss of income and Rs.30,000/- was awarded under the other permissible heads. The Tribunal also awarded interest on Rs.1,30,000/- @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11.5.2006 till its realization. ^^-ws^^ <ffs'-r ^.^ ^ M.A.(C.) 146/200S Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the calculation based on the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. is unreasonable. Since the accident took place in the year 2005, looking to the rise in price of essential commodities, the notional income would have been treated as Rs.30,000/- and the compensation would have been assessed on the said income of the deceased. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. Even if we take the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.30,000/- on the date of accident, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be enhanced. Admittedly, the appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the usual deduction in the matter would be 50% and the amount of dependency of the parents would come to Rs.l5,000/-per annum. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lctxman Iver & Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731, as the appellants/claimants were the parents, the proper multiplier would have been 10 and the amount of compensation would have come to Rs.1,50,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would have come to Rs.1,60,000/- on the basis of calculation made, treating the notional income ofthe deceased as Rs.30,000/-. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. There is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appeal is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed at the motion stage ifself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge sunita