Sc( H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISSON BENCH CORAIVI: HONSBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHR5 SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. Appellants CSasmants Respondents 1 Non-AppSicants IVIIsc. Appeal No. 379 of 2006. 1. Bhuwan Lai Baide S/o Bitthal Baide Aged about 63 years. 2. Anu Bai W/o Bhuwan Lal Baide Aged about 60 years. 3. Krishna Prasad S/o Bhuwan Lal Aged about 15 years, Above all of R/o Viltage Darripara, PS- Gariyaband Distt.-Raipur VERSUS Mahesh Kumar S/o Puran, Aged about 35 years, R/o Jhodhapur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari. 2 Nanak Chand Agrawal, S/o P.R. Agrawai, M/s Ambika Tyre, Bastar Road Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. The New India Snsurance Company Limited Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, Bhiiai, District Durg. iVlisceilaneous Appea! under Section 173 of JVIotor Vehicles Act1988 Present: Shri S.C. Verma, learned counse! for the appellants. ORDER (24th Juiy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on M.C.P.No.465/2006, a petitlon for condonation of the de'ay in jiling the appeai. '^- t-^ 2) On due conslderatjon of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No.465/2006, therefore, is allowed and the deiay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, 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 Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.10.2004, passed in Ciaim Case No.384/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.20,45,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Vishnu Prasad by filing a claim petstion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident in the jntervening nlght of 26th and 27th May,2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tili the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- only though the appellants/ ciaimants were wholfy dependent on the Encomeofthe deceased. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/- wlth the multiplier of 18; the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funerai expenses, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payabie to the claimants at Rs.1,82,000/-. 9) Even assuming that the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income to be taken in the year 2003 was Rs.30,000/- per annum; by deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was unmarried on the date ofthe accident and after his marriage his contribution to the parents wou!d have been reduced substantially; by multipSylng the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the muitiplier of 10, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the csse of Misnicips! Corporaffon of Greates' Bombay Vs. Laxman Syer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heJd that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased the multiplier should never exceed 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the ciaimants become entitled to receive a totat sum of Rs. 1,60,0007- which is iess than the amount of Rs.1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. •^ 4 11) The appea! filed by the appellants/claimants, therefore, is !iab!e to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- ChiefJusfice subbu Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge ^,