% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 535 of 2006 Appellants Claimants -/ Respondents o. Pundlik, S/o Shri Nanajee; Hemne, aged about 45 years Girija Bai, W/o Shri Pundlik Hemne aged about 40 years Both the R/o Village Masal, Post Masal, Tahsil Lakhandur, Distt Distt Bhandara (M.H.) VERSUS Mohinder Singh @ Mahendra, S/o Karnal Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o Oppo. Pipalrao Sagi MotorsAB Road Police Station Bhawar Kua Indore (MP) (Dnver) M/s Nayyar Road Karier Prop Ravindrapal Singh, Nayyar, aged about 40 years, R/o 258 Transport Nagar Indore (MP) (Owner) The Branch Manager, The National New Insurance Company Limited Indore (MP) (Insyrer) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (08th March, 2011) ;——.'-tf .^" ^ Ii -.-> [• The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for theappellants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.02.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No.191 of 2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Someshwar Pundlik, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.10.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.1,70,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepfihg the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,875/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensationof Rs.1,70,000/-only. 5) True, the claimants pleaded in their claim petition that their son Someshwar Pundlik used toearn Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month from his Pan Shop/ Hotel, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that fhe ^-^^^s :^" ^^ 's^ 't^. ''^S!»S^lft ^•/ deceased had any Shop/ Hotel at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,875/- per month on its own estimate. 6) 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 50% of the income of the deceased as deceased Someshwar Pundlik was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 7) The multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that Claimant No.1 Pundlik, father of the deceased himself admitted in his cross-examination that he was 60 years of age. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge vuyvvvvu^