^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR.J Appellants Claimants MA.(ClNo.32Sof2010 1. Santosh Gupta, S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Gupta, aged about 44 years 2. Smt Geeta Gupta, W/o Santosh Gupta, aged about 43 years 3. Nitin Gupta, S/o Santosh Gupta, aged about19years All R/o Malviya Road, Dixit GaB, Gol Bazar. Raipur, Tahsil & Distriot- Raipur (CG) Respondents Non-applicants Versus 1. Pyarchand Randhawa, S/© Rasila Randhawa, Through Yogeslwar Mandhani, S/o Puranlal Manehani, R/o Mata Dewalaya Ward. BhatapaFa, Post OfRce & Police Station Bhatapara, DJstrfct-Raipur(CG) (Driver of offending vehicle Truck bearing regjstration No.CG/04^C/6995) 2 Yogeshwar Mandhani, S/o Poranlal Mandhan, R/o Mata Dewalaya Ward, Bhatapara, Post Offtee & Police Statton Bhatapara, District - Raipur (GG) (Registered owner of offending veliicle Truck bearing registration No.CG/04/ZC/6^5) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Wutchery Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur, Distrtet -Raipur(CG) s^ IN-W^» (Insurer of offending vehicte Truck bearing registration No.CG/O^ZC/6995) Mlsc. Appeal under Sectlon 173 of the Motor Vehteles Act Present : Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appettants. Order (30m March,2010) The following order of the Court was passed t»y Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sh'ivendu Pandya, leamed counsel for the appetlants ts heard on IA No.1/2010, a petition for condonationof the detey in flling the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submisslons of teamed counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken toi the appticatlon, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showlng sitfficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay In filing the appqal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, teamed counsel forthe appelants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhamcement of th® compensation awarded by the 14th Additional htotor AGddent Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.57/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Ra.16,37,OOQ^ clalmed &y the appellants/daimants, unfortunate parents and yoynger brother ^fa^, '^ ^^.. of deceased Robin Gupta, by ffling a claim petitton under Sectioft 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death In the mot@r accideFrt on 24.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.3,46,00(y- as compensation along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptingthe claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awardlng low coinpensaUon of Rs.3,45,000/-only. 8) True, the ctaimants pteaded that decaased Robin ©upta used to eam Rs.10,00(y- per month by running l^rana Shop, the evidence led in that behalf was not of cllnching nature. As the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased to thc extent of Rs.10.000/- per month, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to assess his income on its own estimate. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of tht deceased at Rs.4,000/- permonth. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of Rs.48,000/- per annum towards the pereonal expenses of ttie deceased, though thededuction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of ttie deceased, as the dec^ised was un-married on the date of the accident and after Ws marriage his contribution to the parents would haw been reduced substantially and in view of the recent dietura of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and otliers ¥s ^•. - ••^ ^j' i^-f^ y ^-^- Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreine Court Cases 228. 10) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be feund fault with in view of the fact that the claimants are parents af the deceased and in view of the diotum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporatton of Greater Bombay Vs Launan lytr and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherelnlt was held that in those cases where the claimants are parente of the deceased, thte multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensafion •ither on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the clstfmants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier select^d. 12) The appeal flled by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, i» liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma