'^-3.SL <- ^^^•yy^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. APPELLANTS MA.(CtNo.796of2007 1 Lalman Sahu, Son of Bustam Sahu, aged about 50 years. 2 Smt. Bijali Sahu, Wife of Lalman Sahu, aged 47 years. Both resident of Village - Jamdalkha, Post - Dongaripali, Dtetrict Raigarh (C.G.), at present Dongaripali, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund RESPONDENTS 3. Versus Ajad Khan, Son of Saklr Khan Aged about 35 years, resident of Muktibada, Shivarpur, Buland Sahar, P.S. & District Buland Sahar (Uttar Pradesh) Virendra Singh, Son of R.P. Singh, aged abut 40 years, resident of Bajirpur village, Delhi House No. 382/1-A, Nit Farklabad, Dfetrict Faridabad (Hariyana) Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Regional Office DMsional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Buitding, l^ichahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Harsh Mahant, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ^) ORDER (12th November, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2007 is allowed and the delay of one day in filing the appeal is herby condoned. 3) Shri Harsh Mahant, leamed coun^l for the appellants is heard on admission. 4) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Second AddBional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.105/2006. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.20,25,000/- ctaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Krishna Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accictent on 13.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,46,OX)/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personat expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at •'< 1 •A ^._..^j Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,34,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,46,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Krishna Kumar in the motor accident. 7) Shri Harsh Mahant, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower mutUplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,46,(XX)/- only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Krishna Kumar used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Carpenter, the evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the evidence of AW-1 Lalman, AW-2 Santosh Kumar and AW-3 Rajkumar, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. ^v' / -li;SSSi I A' •%;. 10) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with in view of the recent dictum of the apex Court fn the case of Swed Bashir Ahmed and others vs. Mohammad Zameen and others reported in 2009(2) S.C.C. 225. 11) The multiplier of 13 setected by the Triburel is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the ApexCourt in ttie case of Municlpal CorporaGon ofGreatw Bombay Vs. Laxman /yer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _ subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge v'