HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B8LASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants (Ciaimants) Misc. Appeal (0 No. 318 of2010 1 Hukum Chand Prajapati, S/o Late Dakhai Ram Prajapati, aged about 45 years, Caste - Kumhar; 2 Smt. Mankunwar, W/o Hukum Chand Prajapatl, aged about 42 years, Caste - Kumhar; 3 Awadhesh Kumar, S/o Hukum Chand Prajapati, aged about 20 years, Caste Kumhar; All residents of Village - Satpata, Police Station / Post - Vishrampur, Tehsil - Surajpur, District - Surguja VERSUS Respondents The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Insurer ..--^ Maheshwar Singh, s/o Shri^Das Singh, aged about 41 years, occupation - Owner of Vehicie, R/o Makarbandha, PLolice Station Ramanujnagar, Tehsil Surajplur, district Surguja (C.G.) Owner of the Vehicle Firoz Khan, S/o shri Amanullah Khan, aged about 32 years, occupation Driver, R/o May^pur, Nagar/P.S./ Post Ambikapur, district /r' ? Surguja (C.G.) prlver of the Vehscle (MIscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehicSes Act. 1988) Present: Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (19th July, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Sarguja (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No.62of2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.36,55,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of deceased Rajkumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.01.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 3) Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in granting lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and in not computing the compensation by assessing the income of the deceased; claimants' dependency; and selecting the appropriate multiplier. '^ 4) Deceased Rajkumar was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident. His mother in her evidence before the Tribunal admitted that he was a student. The claimants though pleaded that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by tuition, no reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. 5) Even assuming the incomeofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as we have taken in other cases on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the year 2006; by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased 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, the claimants' dependency would come to Rs.18,000/- per annum; as the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier would not exceed 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipa! Corporation ofGreater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731; the compensation thus would work out to Rs.1,80,000/- by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and another Rs.5,000/- for toss of estate, the compensation works out to Rs.1,90,000/-, which is less than the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ^;:!??^^iff?^^^!?^%'YI^^^^ 4 6) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge