Si<- :^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTJSGARH AT BiLASPUR DIViSION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ.& HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal No. (0 1070 of 2008 1. Oraainaj CIaimants 2. 3. 4. Rajesh Nimani, Age - 47 yrs. S/o. Shri Dharamchand Nimani (Father of Deceased) Smt. Chandrakanta Nimani Age - 43 yrs. W/o. Shri Rajesh Nimani (Mother of Deceased) Rahu! Nimani, Age - 20 yrs. S/o. Shri Rajesh Nimani (Brother of Deceased) MJSS. Puja Nimanl, Age - 16 yrs. D/o. Shri Rajesh Nimani (Sister of Deceased) Represented through father appellant No. 1 R/o. C-40/1, Tagore Nagar Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Orlgjnai non- Jalpa! Singh S/o. Sureendra Singh C/o. Bombay Orissa Road Lines Chokara Naia, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) (Owner - Truck No. CG-04-ZC- 5431) Dhanpat Rai Ranmille S/o. Shri Pyreial Ranmiile Piot No. 27, Popular Society NakaNo. 10,Wadi Near Check Post Amraoti Road, Nagpur (M.S.) (Driver of Truck No. CG-04-ZC- 5431) ..•!IT'S^ %.. v^!/ ::^A^ ^? 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through :- Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 1 iVladina Building Jai! Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company of Truck No. CG-04-ZC-5431) CovernoteNo.428219 Period - 01.09.2005 to 31.08.2006 4. Bhimraj Solanki, Age - 57 yrs. S/o. Monaji Bhai Soianki Kumharpara, Fafadih Raipur (C.G.) (Owner:- Toyata Qualis Car No. CG- 04-A-7511) 5. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Through :- Sr. Divisional Manager, Dlvislonai Offlce No. 2 l!nd Fioor, Chawia Complex Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer :- Toyata Qualis Car No. CG-04-A-7511) (Pol. No. 2006/5482) Period - 04.11.2005 to 03.1 1.2006 (MisceSlaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe JVJotor Vehlcles Act. 1988) Present: Shri SS Rajput, counsel for the appellants. . ORDER (20th JuSy, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the appeltants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident ^sf^-y^ ^^' ~"\ fs i ^^•^Sl^ ^ J %g:3iII| g i .i- ^.. ''^./ .^^ Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 30.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ctaimants, unfortunate parents, brother and sister of deceased Rohit Nimani, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicjes Act, for his death in the motor accident In the intervening night of 1st and 2nd of Juiy, 2006, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation atong with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 4) Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- onty. 5) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rohit Nimani used to earn Rs.1,20,000/- per annum from his Jeweliery Shop, the evidence !ed in that behatf was not of clinching nature. In the claimants' evidence itself, 11 has come that the Jewellery Shop in fact beiongs to the father of the deceased (Claimant Rajesh Nimans) and the deceased only used to assist him in the shop. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 6) The Tribuna! has been qulte liberal In dsducting on!y 1/3 of the income qfjbe deceased towards his personal expenses •^^••^, ':'m' ^*.. 4 though the deduction in that behalf couid have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus IVIohammed JameeS and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 7) The muitipller of 1 5 selected by the Tribuna! is a!so on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in vlew of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Miinicipal Corporation of Greafer Bombay Vs. Laxman fyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 8) 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 cjaimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the muitiplier selected. 9) The appea! filed by the appeilants/ ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu