HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J MiscADpeal (C»No. 558 of 2010 Appellant Claimant Gorakhnath Pandey son of late Ramdulare Pandey, aged about 50 'years, resident of Thadhpathar, Police Station Chandni, Tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. (Insurer) 2 Sarvesh Kumar Choubey son of Vikramaditya Choubey, aged about 30 years, resident of Pal Danauli, Post Odgi, tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. (Owner) 3 Brijendra Prasad Pandey son of Ram Bahadur Pandey, aged about 35 years, resident of village Khajuri, district Sidhi * M.P. (Driver) IVIiscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Ashok KumarShukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER >nd (22"aJuly,2011) ^•'3fi'9i '.fl^-^sW'^"^ -"^ •^g1' -'i>^>. ^-.rf!^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.01.201 0, passed in Claim Case No.185/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,90,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate father of deceased Umakant Pandey by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 25.07.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,95,000/- only. 4) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel Tor respondent No.1, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) The claimant is father of deceased Umakant Pandey. The claimant admitted in his cross-examinatlon before the Tribunal that he owns about 5 acres of agricultural land in the village. It has further come in his evidence that he has three other sons. 6) True, the claimant pleaded that his son deceased Umakant Pandey used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as petty contractor, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7) As deceased Umakant Pandey was unmarried on the date of the accident, the deduction of 50% of his income by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses too cannot be found fautt with in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corpwation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 8) The multiplier of 1 O selected by the Tribunal is perfectly inline with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in t'nose nl cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 10) The appeal fited by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chiet Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi