E-§E@E-§ COE3R? QF CH$ATT§$GARE§ A? E§LAS§UR W {iQmm : §§ON’ELE SF§R§ RAJEEV GU??A, $.Jj & HQN’BLE SE‘ER§ SUNEL KUMAR SENH§g .E. ivi§$a Aweai Ne. 34’? a? 2&34‘. 3A?PELLAN‘YS 1. Trlveni Bai wife of $ré Guial Ram {CLAEMANTS} aged abaut 35 years. Guial Ram Dhruw S/o Sr§ Sukh Ram aged about 40 yeara both Residence cf wage - Chhachhan Pam, Thana ~— Abhanpur, distt. Ra'apui“ MG. ‘N Versus RE$PONEEW§S 1. Shx'avan Kumar Slo Sri Chait Ram gg'a‘? - Sapha, aged abaui‘ 32 yeam, Rio A?PL§CAN?S§ Vinaige - Tekria‘Thana — Abhanpur, Disii. Raipur C.G. 2. Ami Rao S/o Sri Amba Lal Rae RIO Wiage — §3aloud, Poat - Tekri’, Thama — Abhamw, Distt. - Rama C.G., Registered Owner, 3. Divisionas Manager, The Oriental insurance Cempany Ltd., Divisional Office No.2; SaiNagar;; Raipur. Mi§CELLN€EGU$ AP?EAL UNDER SEC‘i‘ICN 173 OF THE MGTQR VEHEQLES ALET ‘ ?resent : Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsei for the appeiiants. Shri J.3.P. Charidi’asen, ieamed ccunsei fer respondent No. i. Shii Shaiiendra Shanna, iearneci counsei foi’ respondent No.3. i -\ QREER {gem Juiy, 29m; The ioiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gepta, 6J5 Li,” @ This is ciaimants’ appeai for enhancement of the campensaiion awamiad by ihe Sixth Additional Motoy Accidenis Ciaims Tr§bunaL Raipur (for Sheri. “the Tribunai’) vide award dated 08.08.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.152/2GO2. 2. As against the compensation ot‘ Rs.7,05,000!— claimed by the appeilants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Umendra @.Devendra Dhruv by 'fiiing a ciaim petiiion‘under Section 166 of the Motor Vehioies Act, for his death in ihe moior accident on 1G.§9.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,64,QOO/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of riling of'the oiaim petrtion tiH the date of actuai payment. 3. Shri SC. Verma, iearned counse‘r for the appeiianis submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000l— per annum on the basis oi‘the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section ‘i63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.1 ,64,000/- oniy. 4. Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, learned counsei for respondent No.3 the Orientei insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberai in awarding substantiai amount of Rs.1,64,000/— as compensation to the claimants. 5. $hrl J.S.P. Chandrasen, learned counsel tor respondent Not also supported the award 6. Tme, the ciaimants pleaded that their son Umendra @ Devemra Dhruv was aged about ’48 years and ueed“to earn R3A15QJ- per day as Mason but the evidence led in that behaif was net 0f ciinohing nature. We; therefore, do not find any fauit in ihe approach of ‘ihe Tribunai in discarding the ciaimants’ evidence abaut the incame of the deceased. 7 Even assuming the income of the deceased at Re.30,060f« V‘ per annum on the basis of the notional income iaken by us in other (33$ in the year 2002, the annuai dependency of the ciaimanis wouid no? be more than Rs.15,000f- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased wouid be cieduoted towards his personal expenses as he was un—married on the date of the accident and after his marriage his contribution to the parents wouid have been reduced substantiaiiy; as the ciaimants are parents of the deceased the appropriate muitipiier wouid be ’iO in View of the dictum of ii e Apex Court in the case of Municipai corporation of . Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman iyer 8; another, reported in i23§93§ 3 SCC ?3’i, wherein it was heid that in those cases Where the ciaimanis are parents of the deceased, the muitipiier shouid never exceed 10; by muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.15,DSD/- with the muitipiier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,5@;000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards ' funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards ioss of estate, the ciaimants become entitied to receive a totai surn of Rs.1,60,000l- ae compensation for the death of their son Umendra @ Devendra iixx Dhruv, which amounf Es Iess than fhe amount of Rs.1,64,DOO/— awarded by the Tribunal. a 8. We; thereforé, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Q e sat . The appeai fiied by the appetiants/ ctaimants for nhancement of the compenion, therefore, is tiable to be ismissed and ts hereby ’dtsmissed. d ‘ie 1Q No order as to mete e aw? ' are # “ Sd/. 1 V i iii/i7 Jisia/:V lf ° Che Jusuce r Sunil Kumar Sinhg 7 Judge nimmi 1 7 s