HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & E HON’BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR JJ. Miscellaneous AQQeal No. 809 of 2006 Agge‘Ilants 1. Krishna Kumar Hazara S/o Late Shri A.K. Hazara Aged about 56 years Smt’. Jali Hazara W/o Krishna Kumar Ha’zara Aged about 52 years z Both R/o Of Hemu Nagar Thana Torwa, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) . Vérsus Resgondents 1. Navin Kumar‘ Christian S/o Mojesh Kumar Christian Aged about 35 years (Driver) R/o Baitalpur, Thana Hirri Tahsil & District Bilaspur Non applicant No.1 in lower court. Chauth Ram Bajaj S/o Chandu Ram Bajaj R/o J.V. Furniture Near Katora Taiab Raipur (C.G.) Non], applicant No.2 in lower court The National insurance Company Limited, Mobin Mahal G.E. Road Through National insurance Company Limited Taha Complex, Priyadarshini Nagar Vypar Vihar Road Bilaspur (C.G.) Non applicant No.3 in l0wer court --------- lAQQeal under Section 173 1 of . the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 Appearance: Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Counsel for the appellants. N\one for the respondents. , ‘\ 2 Misc. Appea! No‘ 809 of 2006 ORAL-ORDER (1 3.08.2009) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) (2) amount of compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 89/2005 on 2”“ of February, 2006. (3) Heard. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of The facts, briefly statedi are as under:- Deceased Kiranjeet Hazara was the son of the appellants. He died in the motor accident on 22.10.2004. The claimants being the parents filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.76,50,000/— on account of death of the their son in the motor accident. They contended that the deceased was earning Rs.5,986/— per month by working as a salesman in T.T.K. Company..The father of the deceased namely Krishna Kumar Hazara was examined as AW-1 and he deposed that his son was earning Rs.5,986/- per month. The friend of the deceased namely Subhankar Mukherjee was also examined as AW-2, who stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/—. The appellants/claimants had also filed a document (Ex.-A/10) showing the income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding vide Para-15 of the award that though this document shows that the total sum of Rs.5,986/- was paid to the deceased in the month of September, 2004 but this amount includes a sum of Rs.1,543/- as the amount incurred on tours to different places; Rs.2,050/— as the allowances for the tours and Rs.393/— as telephoneexpenses and thus a sum of Rs.2,000/- only was the amount of real income of the deceased. The Tribunal, on its own estimate, added a further sum of Rs.5,00/— per month and \ assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- and . \ Misc. Appea! No. 809 of 2006 the annual income as Rs.30,000/—. The Tribunal deducted 1/3“ towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.20,000/—. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11, and the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,20,000/—. The Tribunal awarded Rs.45,000/- under the other heads and thus a total amount of Rs.2,65,000/— was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal also aWarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization. (4) Mr. Rajeev Bharat, {earned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that a low income has been assessed and a Iow multiplier has been used. (5) We have considered the entire material available on record. The perusal of the contents of Para-15 of the award would show that the Tribunal has deducted only incidental expenses from the gross salary of the deceased and it has rightly assessed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,000/— per month. The Tribunal, on a humanitarian approach, on its own, added Rs.5,00/- to this amount and the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.2,500/- per month. We do not find any fault in such approach of the Tribunal regarding assessment of the income of the deceased. (6) As far as deduction is concerned, the Tribunal has been quite liberal while deducting only 1/3’d towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas the deduction would have been to the extent of 50% because the deceased was unmarried and his contribution to the parents ' T’“ . \ Misc. Appeal No. 809 of 2006 @ would have been substantially reduced after his marriage. This also appears to be liberal in view of the dictum of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of §yed Basheer Ahamed and Others —Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225. (7) As far as muitipiier is concerned, the multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal appears to be a higher multiplier in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay -Vs- Laxman Iyer and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731. (8) For the reasons stated above, we do not hnd any scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. (9) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. i Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge