C$§AM: §-3GN’§LE SHE! @JEEV GgPTA, OJ. 1 H$NEBLE SHR! TP SHARMA, .5. l msc iaggeai No.34312a32 Aygfeuams 1 . (:laimams i Resgsnéengs 1 . 3p Vishwanath S/o Dha}ju Mahato, Aged about 50 years Ku ‘Laxmi D/o Vishwanath Mahato, Aged about 21 years Kumar§ Amna D10 Vishwanath Mahatg, Aged about 19 yeers Mano} Slo Vishwanath Mahate, Aged aboui 1? years Appellant No.4 through iegai Guardian father Vishwana€h Mahato, AH agre {asiden’c of Shankarnagar‘ Geetanjiénagar} Sector —~ 3, Qtr No.12, Raipur, PS Ci‘v‘d Une, Raipur \CG} tiereee Kapik Sar'm S/o Ravi Sarin, R/o Gayatr% Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Off : Poiice Station Police Station Ctvii Line, Ratpur (CG) Girish Kumat Sfo Babuiai Pandya, Rio Lodhipara, Raipur Tahsii and District Raipur (CG) The Orientai Ensuranoe Company Limited, Through : Divisionei Manager, Jaii Read, Raipur Distt. Raipur. HEGH CQURT OF CHHATTiSaGARH AT BELASPUR DEVESEON BENCH Misceitaneoue Aggeat under Seetimt W3 at the Meta? vehietes Act, 19% : Shri SC Verma‘ counsei forthe appeiiants. ?reeertt Shri RK Paii, Advocate 0n behaif of Smt Fcuzia Mirza, § caunse! for responc§ents No. 1 & 2. Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for respondent No.3 1 QRDEE 1 {2“ May, 20%} ¥ Th9; foalewing order of the Court was passed by Roiooa: Goptos C.J. ‘V‘ This is daimams' appeai for enhancement of ihe ‘ ‘ compensation awarded by the T“ Additional Motor Accident Ctaims fribuna!‘ é‘aipur (for ohort, “ihe Triburral”) vide award dated 25th January, 2092 passed in Claim Case No.15/2000. 2) The daimants, unfortunate father, sisters and brother of deceased — Dev Kumar o!aimed compensation of Ref! 1 ,53,900/- by fiiing a claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehiotes Act, 1938 {for short “the Aot"} for his death in the motor accident on 14.11.1999, when his Motor Cycie (Buiiet) bearing registration No.MP—23N—O154 was dastteo‘ by other Motor Cycle Hero Honda bearing registration NoMP-ZEIMC—63QO resulting in moitipie serious injuries to deceased — Dev Kumar, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospitat. The ciaimants further pieaded that deceased u Dev Kumar was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs.88,000/— per ahnum. 3) The owner and driver of Hero Honda Motor Cycle contested the claim and in their toint written statement denied their tiabitity to pay compensation to the otaiman‘ts on the olea that the deceased himseif was responsibie for the accident. The insurer of Hero Honda Mom Cyc!e a§sa contested the cia§m anti took the p§ea that the Motcw Cycie wee being used in breach of the poiicy 4) The claimants examieed AW/1 —— Vishwanath & AW/Q -=- Dhruv Kumar Tiwari, in support of their claim, whereas, the owna and driver of the Mofox' Cycie examined NAWJW w Kepil Semen in rebettei. 5) ‘ The Tribune}, 0n a eioee scrutiny 9f the eyidence ieci by the parties, heid ihai deceased — Dev Kumar died on acceunt of ihe inieriee sueiained by him in the motor accident on 14.1 i .199e; the accident eccurred due te rash and negligent driving of the mote? cyciist cf Herc Honda Mctm Cycle; and as the Hem Hende Meter Cycle on the date of the accident was insured with the Oi’ientai insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4iit30£il— pet annum. By deducting 1/3” oi the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and another sum of Rs.t0,00G/— towards business reiated expenses, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at RstTJOOI- per annum. By muitiplying annuai dependency of Rs.i7]GO/- with the multiplier of i2, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,12,400/«. By. awarding a fudher sum of Rs.17,QOD/~ under the other heads, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.2,29,400/- as compensation to the claimants tor the death of deceased — Dev Kumar in the motor \ \ \ conditions. I \ \ \ @ accident. The Tribuna! furthef {éirected payment cf interest on the above amount 9f compensation of Rs.2,29,400/~ @ 9%Vper annum from {ho date of wing of the Claim PeEition tin the date of actual payment 7) shri SC Vefma, !eamed counsel for the appeuants yehementiy argued that the Tribunai has eg’red in not accepting the m aseeeeing his tncome et Rs.41 ,GGG/— per annum onty; in assessing the etaiments’ dependency at Rs.17,700/— per annum onty; and in ewarding tow compensation of Re‘2i29,400/- a) Shri Ali Aegar, teamed counset for the insurer of Hero Henda Motm Cycle, on the other hand, euppottect the award and submitted that the Tribunai has been quite iiberai in awarding a substantiai amount ef Rst2,29,400/- ae compensation to the ciaimants. 9) Shri RK Paii, ieamed counsei for respondents No.1 & 2 aiso supported the impugned award. 10) True; the otaimante pleaded in their oiaim petition that deceased — Dev Kumar used to earn Rs.88,000/— per annum, but, the income Tax return for the reievant year produced before the Tribunai disciosed the income of the deceased at Rs,4t,000/- per annum only. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the aeseesment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at R341 ,OODI- per annum. ’11) As deceased — Dev Kumar was unmarried; his father —— ~ Viehwanath was having his own income; claimants’ evidence ,about the income of the d‘eceaeed; V e Ciaimant No.1 Ciaimants No.2, 3 8: 4, who are sisters and brother of deceased - Defv ‘ Kumar were dependent on their father, C!aimant NM , — Vésjhwanath, we do net find any infirm§ty in the assessment 9f the ciaimants’ dependency by the Tnbunai at Rs.1 7,700/— per annum. 12) The multipiier of 12 seiected by the Tribunai is rather on lthe higher side in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the caee of Municiee! Carperation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman iyer‘er‘ad enoiher reporied in §2im3i 8 SCG mi; wherein it was ‘neid thai in those caseswhere the claimants are parents of the deeeeeed, the mui‘tjpiier sheuid never exceed 10. 13) We, therefere, do not hnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants’ dependency, or the muitipiier seieeted. 14) The appeai, therefore; is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . i5) No order I/J/ es to oosts. / msffw Sd/— ”A“>i ‘ sdl‘ CHIEF JUSTICE ‘ “LB Shanna padme Judge /