HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) No. 1372 of 2008 Narmada Bai Suryavanshi W/o Rajkumar, aged about 42 years, Rajkumar Suryavanshi S/o Ram Khilawan Suryavanshi, aged about 36 years, Both are R/o Davripara, Ratanpur, District Bllaspur (C.G.) _ APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS Versus Gyanendra Chaturvedi S/o Anil Kumar Chaturvedi, R/o Sindhi Colony, Jarahabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) through Rajkishore Choubey. S/o Daya Shankar Choubey, Main Road, Bus Stand, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicie Bearing No. CG 10 A/§O58) Rajkishore Choubey S/o Dayashankar Choubey, aged about 48 years, R/o Main Road, Near Bus Stand, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Ganesh Yadav S/o Bharat Lat Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Opposite New District Hospitai, Biiaspur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle Bearing No. CG 10' A/9058) Branch Manager, The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Near Bus Stand, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: nun aw Shri lndrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the eltants. 1. ORDER (17m October, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 16.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 6/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.1 1 ,14,000/- claimed by the claimants by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their son Kamal Prasad in the motor accident on 12.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/~ as compensation along with quantified amount of interest of Rs.30,000/-. 4. Shri lndrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.3,0D,OOO/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low as the deceased would have provided support to the appellants in their old age. 5. The claimants themselves pleaded that their son Kamal Prasad used to earn Rs.60 —70l‘ per day as a labourer. lnspite of the above pleading, the Tribunal has been quite liberal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/— per annum. 6. The claimants’ dependency assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- per annum also appears to be on the higher side as the Tribunal deducted the usual 1/3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 7. The muitiplier of 13 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 Iyer 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. 8. We, therefore, 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 claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. W Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge “MA _v...,_.M._M....,,._ .. o, Sdl— subbu Sd/- Chief Justice