HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BELASPUR DiViSION BENCH CORAM: HON5BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUIVSAR SINHA, J. Misceilaneous Appeal (C) No.378 of 2007 ADpeilants ResDpondents 1, Diwan Chand S/o Thaiha Ram, Age 52 2. Smt Jam Bai W/o Diwan Chand, Age 45 both R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No.17, Chawani, Bhiiai, Tah & Distt Durg VERSUS 1. Basant Chouhan S/o Thukel Chouhan, Age 87, R/o Chhattis Garh Nagar, Tikara - Para, PS Tikarapa, Raipur, Dlstt Raipur ^ 2: Smt Santosh Bai Agrawal, W/o Vishnu Daya! R/o AShwanl Nagsar, Raipur Distt Raipur 3. Divisionai Manager, Nationat tnsurance Co. Ltd., Akash Ganga Compiex, Supela, BhiJai, Distt Durg 4. Ram Anjor sing Through Pramod Sing, R/o Camp - 2, Bhiiai, Distf Durg 5. Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd., Kacheri Road, Raipur Distt Ralpur Appeal under Section 173 of the SVSotor Vehtcjes Act. 1988 Present : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appeiiant. None for respondents No.1, 2 & 4 though served. Shri Raj Awasthy, counse! for respondent No.5. T?nB X. \' ORDER >th (28m August, 2008) The fqftowing order of the Court wa^ passed by '* ' . . ;•.'. '..:.;.: Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 3 Learned counsel for the partjes are heard on tANo. 1/2007, a petition for condonation ofthe deiay in filing the appeaS. 2) On due consideration of thesubmissions of iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the applicatlon, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal. 3) iA No. 1/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shrl Amiyakant Tiwari, iearned counse! for the appeilants is heard on admlssion. 5) AppelJants are seeking enhancem.ent of th& compensation awarded by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Durg, vide award dated 14.02.2006 passed in Claim Case No.358/2005. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed by the appellants / daimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ravindra Chand by fitjng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 04.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.3,13,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe daim petition tiii the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, iearned counsel for the appellants vehemently ,:sargued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low ;x compensatW of Rs.3,13,000/- only. 8) The ctaihiants themselves pleaded that their son deceased Ravindra Chand used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as driver. The Tribunal accepted the claimants' pleading and evidence in regard to the income of the deceased and assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rct of the income ofthe deceased towards his personal expensesthough the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent Qf 50% of the income of the deceasedas the deceased on the date of the accident was un-married and after hls marriaae, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially. 10) The multipEier of 12 selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side in view of 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 those cases, where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multipSier selected. 12) The appeal, fiEed by the appeilants / .claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. padma '\" Sd/- paief Justice "\ •.. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge