HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Apgeal No. 463 of 2006 Aggellants s/o late Mohan Singh Saggu Claimants 2. Smt. Manjeet Kaur, aged 45 years, Manohar Singh Saggu, VERSUS Respondents 1. Budhman, aged about 24 years, s/o caste Muriya. 2. Lachhu, aged about 12 years, s/o Sitaram, minor, through natural and uncle Dhaniram, s/o guardian aged about 35 years. Suku, 3. Chamru, s/o Sukma, aged 45 years, 4. Dhaniram, s/o Suku, aged 35 years, 5. Anantram, s/o Usaru, aged 35 years, 6. Usari Bai, aged about 50 years, wd/o Chamaru, r/o village Dudhagaon, ‘ All above are Kondagaon, district Bastar tahsil C.G. 7. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. distt. Bastar C.G. Branch Jagdalpur, WW 2 MA. No. 463 of 2006 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.7. ORDER (02“ November, 201 1) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants’ appeal for .enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.29/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,08,800/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Kuldeep Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.12.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,100/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held that deceased Kuldeep Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.12.2004; the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased Kuldeep Singh who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident and”the driver of the other vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.-17ZD/0286 and C.G.—17ZD/0287; the negligence of the 3 MA. No. 463 of 2006 deceased and the driver of the other vehicle Tractor-Trolley was to the extent of 50% each; as the above Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company ' Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.46,200/— per ann'um. By deducting Rs.18,000/- per annum towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.28,200/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.28.,200/— with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,10,200/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.3,20,200/—. As deceased Kuldeep Singh was found responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal directed the owner, driver and insurer of the Tractor-Trolley to pay Rs.1,60,100/— i.e. 50% of Rs.3,20,200/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Kuldeep Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,100/— @ 6% per annum. 5) Shri Mano} Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in holding that deceased Kuldeep Singh also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.46,200/— per annum only; in selecting the lower Ii l l l\ V a}w /;; 4 M.A. No. 463 of 2006 multiplier of 11; and in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.1,60,100/- only. 6) Shri Shailendra Sharma, Iearned counsel for respondent No.7, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Tractor- Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Kuldeep Singh also equally contributed to the accident; the compensation of Rs.1,60,100/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Kuldeep Singh who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, the only eyewitness examined by the claimants, AW2 Laxman categorically admitted in para,3 of his cross-examination that the motorcyclist himself dashed against the Trolley; and the motorcycle at the time of the accident was being driven at high speed. in View of the above categoric admission of the only eyewitness examined by the claimants, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, affirm the above finding. 8) So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is apparent that the income-tax return produced by the claimants before the Tribunal revealed the total annual income of the firm of claimant No.1 Manohar Singh Saggu, father of deceased Kuldeep Singh at Rs.92,400/—. The Tribunal assuming that the contribution of the deceased in the business of his father was to the extent of 50%, W M.A. No. 463 of 2006 assessed his annual income at Rs.46,200/—. In our opinion, the above assessment of the income Of the deceased by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the Iower side. 9) The assessment of the claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal by deducting only Rs.18,000/- per annum towards the personal expenses of the deceased is rather on the lower side as the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of Rs.46,200/- considering that deceased Kuldeep Singh on the date of the accident was unmarried; the claimants are his parents; and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the ‘cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed "Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. , 10) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and 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 of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we 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. \/ 6 MA. No. 463 of 2006 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice yr “7\ Sdl- N.K.Agarwal Judge