HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSION BENCH GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J /^k )<^ ; nn/•n.+n ^iauiiciiiio 1 Rsm SewaK Yadav S/o Kanhaiyaial Ysdsv, Aysd about 48 yssrs 2 Smt Pyari Yadav, ;W/o Ramsewak Yadav, Both are R/o Nsrdaha, PS Vidhan Sabha chowki (Dharsiva), shsli Qi dlstrict — Raipui" RCa! Non-appellants Shambhunath Dhruv, S./o Brijlal Dhruv Aged about 24 years, Throuyh - Pariyojana Karyapalan Adhikri, Saghan Jii'a Krishi Kar/alaya, Kutchheri C-ho'wk RaiDur, CG Pariyojana Karyapaian Adhikri, Saghan Jl!a Krishl Kary'ateya, Kutohheri Cho'vvk RaiDur (CG) The State of CG Throush Coilector, Raip'dr, Tah & District Raipur CG isceiianeous Appeal under Sectson 173,of thj ll^otor Vshlcls Act snt Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel forthe aDpellants os S&aff .*-&:ugust, 2010) The foilowina order of the Court was passed bv t£ti_? €S «5^y^^l^^^?i"^^:^i^^^<^g^^;^ nn ^" -;:'s^ ','•: .y-l-iS, (^ Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on M.C.P. No. 78/2005, a petition for condonation of the delay in fliing the appeal. 2) On due consideratlon of the submissions of iearned counsel for the appellants and the grounds Saken in the application, v/e ars satisfied that the appellants have succeeded In showing sufficlent cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3) iVl.C.P. No.78/2005, therefore, is ailowed and the delay in filina the appeal is herebv condoned. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel fdr the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appetlants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Trlbunal') vide award dated 20.03.2004, passed In Claim Case No.68/200.3. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,63,000/- ciaimed by the sppetlants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceassd Mahesh Yadav, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19'.03.2003, ths Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim Detition till the date of actual pavment. 7) Shri S.C. Verma, tearned counse I- <•the appei l-anA itted that .1 ^/StSUIfSI the Tribunal has erred In not acceptln.g the t'ne income of the deceased: and in ,€^^ ^ff^ 1 "ij] assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awardina low compensation of Rs.1 ,60,000/- oniy. True. the claimants Dleaded that their son Mahesh Yadav used to earn Rs.3,600/- per month as an electrician, the evidence led in that behaif was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault In the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceassd. 9) Even assumina that the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.30,000/- per annum .as suggested by learned counsel for the appeilants during the course of hearing;the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.15,000/-, as 50% of the income of the deceased is liabte to be deducted tovrfards his personai expenses in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syee ;er Ahamed and others Vs IVIohammed Jameel and 225; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case woutd not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of t'ne Apex Court in the case of ed iri (2003) 8 SCC. ?31, wherein it was held that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents ofthe deceased, the muttipiier should never exceed 10; multipiying the annua! dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the muitiplier of 10, the compsnsation works out to Rs. 1,50,000,?-: by addinci further sum of Rs.5,000/- tov/ards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for IQSS of estate, the ctaimants become entitled to receive a totalsum of Rs.1 ,60,000/- as compensation for the death ^ 4 of their son Mahesh Yadav in the motor accident and the same imount of Rs.1,60.000/- has been awarded bv the Tribuna! as compensatlon to the appeilants/ ciaimants. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bv the Tri'ounal. 11) The appeal, flled by the appetlants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, faiis and is hereby nimmi dlsmlssed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge