^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION HON'BLE SHRI GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. ^l- AppelSants (Claimants) Mlsc. Appeal No. fCI 745 of 2010 1. Usel Ram Netam, Age 45 yrs, S/o Late Bahadur Singh Netam, 2. Budhani Bai Netam, Age - 43 yrs, W/o Shri Use! Ram Netam, Both the above are R/o Village - Diga Nagar, Gram Panchayat Mohpal Dlstt. Jagdaipur (CG) h^i Respondents (Non-applicants) Lachinder Sethiya, Age ~- 26 yrs, S/o Shri Samaiu Sethiya, r/o Viiiage - Alnaar, Tahsi! - Lohandiguda, Distt Jagdaipur (CG) (Driver of Truck No.CG - 19/H/2207) Manohar Golcha, S/o KM Golcha, R/o - Jagdamma Metals, Power House Road, Tahsii & Distt Jagdaipur (CG) (Owner of Truck No.CG -19/H/2207) The Orienta! Insurance Com Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Behind Amar Talkies Tahsil & Distt Dhamtari (CG) (ins. Com. of Truck No. CG - 19/H/2207) Dalvinder Singh, S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Viil Near Oswal Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Ravigram, Tahsii & Distt Raipur (CG) (Owner of Truck No.CG-04/ZD/5231) The Relignce General Insurance Com. Ltd., Through Branch Manager ^^a^^ /^s^. ^ ^ ^^.^ / /' i 1^.^:3'^^ M \ l^" Branch Office - at Krishna Complex, Infront of CMI Court, Raipur (CG) (Ins Com of Truck No.CG- 04/ZD/5231) (MlsceJSaneous_ape8aJ under Section 173 ofthe Motor Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (29th Jiily, 2010) The followlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsei for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the defay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the appllcation; we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficlent cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) l.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fiilng the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.A. Lohanl, learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Kanker (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 23.03.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 30 of 2009. '^a^S' h»<^ 6) As against the compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Manik Ram Netam, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20-08-2007, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,09,500/- as compensation aiong with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 7) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; iri selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,09,500/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Manik Ram Netam used to earn Rs.3,600/- per month as cieaner in the Truck, the evidence led in that behalf was not of dinching nature. !n fact, the employer of the deceased in his written statement stated that only a sum of Rs.800/- per month was being paid to the deceased. !n this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/-perannum. 9) The Tribunai has been qulte ilbera! In deducting Qp.ty 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses though the deduction in that behaif couid have been to the extent ^/ iiSiissssisssisssss&i^siSissssisss^^ lliliillllilii' of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameei and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, 10) The muitlplier of 10 seiected by the Tribuna! also cannot found fault with in view of the fact that the ctalmants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manicipa! Corpos'ation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lsxman !y@r &nd another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiptier should never exceed 10. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier seiected. 12) The appeal filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarity. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmml