H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARK AT BILASPUR iLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. ^^ Appeal No.101 of 2005 Claimant Kali Bai, Wd/o Puniram Tamboli, aged about 38 years, resident of Sakrali (Ba) Thana Bharadwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjglr Champa (CG) 3 Jitendra Kumar, S/o SK Thomas, R/o Nehru Nagar Post Office, Bilaspur, District Biiaspur (CG) Swarn Singh, S/o not known, vehicie owner No.CG 04,1639 r/o Darri Road, Korba District Korba (CG) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Officer Korba DO 450900 District Korba (CG) Misceilaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Shri Shailendra Dubey and Shri Rajnish Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. »nd The fotlowing order of the Court was passed <!?*".. •yf;""':'' I '•«*»--'~'l;i 1 ^. '"vy./ This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Sakti (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.02.2004, passed in Claim Case No.36/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.57,40,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Vishnu Prasad Tamboli by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.07.2003; the Tribunat awarded a totai sum of Rs.3,02,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the dafe of the filing of the claim petstion tiil the date of afctual pay.ment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that claimant's son Vishnu Prssad Tamboli died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.07.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the drlver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-G/1639; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the -Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the ,award, the above findings recorded by.the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, By deducting Rs.40/- towards the personal '•^. ^ ^ -<ws-:' '^; ^ \ ••...^/ expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.60/- per day; RS.1,800/- per month and Rs.21,600/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.21,600/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,80,800/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for the damage of the shop of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,02,800/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her son deceased Vishnu Prasad Tamboli in- the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,02,800/- @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shailendra Dubey and Shri Rajnish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in notaccepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.100/- per day only; in deducting 40% of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses; in selecting the lower muttiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,02,800/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,02,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. )/l/ rw .,iyl.Ste. '<|, S( . ;si^ I & teg1'5'"^ 1 I^y 8) Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents No.1. and 2 the driver and ownerof the offending vehicle also supported the award. 9) True, the claimant pleaded that her son Vishnu Prasad Tamboli used to earn Rs.500/- per day and Rs.1,500^Cper month, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault ;n the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.100/- per day on its own estimate. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 40% 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 considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamsd and others Vs Moharrmied Jamee! and another reported in (2009) 2 ^' 11) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunai fs also on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, whereln it was heid that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 1 O. ( w5« ..// "^f/ ^"SS&'S it..^ padma 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellanydaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order ,as to costs. ^.. _ -—__ __-..-—: Sd/- j Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sd/- L. ^. - -^ Chief Justice