HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR DSVESION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HO?^BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Clalmants Respondents Non-Applicants Misc. Aopeaj No. 628 of 2006 1. Panch Ram Dhruv, S/o. Puran Dhruv, aged about 45 years. 2. Savitri Bai, w/o. Panch Ram Dhruv, aged about 43 years. Ai! residents of village Pishda, P.0. Bhibhaura, Tah. Bera!a, Dlstt. Durg (CG). Versus 1. Mangal Sahu, s/o. Narayan Sahu, R/o. Viil. Dhaneli, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Ramadhar Singh Suryavanshi S/o. Mangai Lai Suryavanshi, r/o. Viii. DhaneEi, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The New india insuranceCo. Ltd., by Dlvislonal Manager, The Nevv' India insurance Co. Ltd., Kachahari Chowk, Jai! Road, Raipur (CG). MiSCEMANEOUS^PP^Ai^yNDER_SECTJONJ.Z3..0.FTHE MOTORVEHiCLE ACT. 1988 Present Snri S.C. Verma and Shri Omprakash Yadav, counse! for the appeilants. Shri Sudhir Agrawai, counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (SmMarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: The unfortunate parents of deceased Nand Kishore are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 8th Additlonal Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 28.11.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.20/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Nand Kishore by filing a clalm petitlon under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 03.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,03,000/- as compensation along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petitlon tili the date of actual payment. 3) Shri S.C. Verma and Shri Omprakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appeliants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/- per month only, whereas hi's employer categorically stated in his ev'sdence before the Tribunal that he was paying Rs.3,000/- per month as salary to the deceased; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in seiecting the lower muitiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawai; iearned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand submitted that as permisslon under Section 170 of the Motor ^ 1 ..^ ^jf ^ ^ ^.. '%^ '"•--.^^ INN^ Vehicles Act was never sought by the Insurance Company betbre the Tribunal, he does not press the cross-objections fited on behalf of respondent No.3. 5) The cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent No.3, the New Jndia Insurance Company Limited, therefore, are dismissed as not pressed. 6) Shri Sudhir Agrawa!.. learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, however, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as pleaded by learned counse! for the appeifants, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs. 18,0007- per annum as 50% of Rs.36,000/- is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased considering that he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamad and others v. IVJohammed JameeE and another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225; as the claimants are parents of the deceased and the father of the deceased admittedly was having his own independent income, the appropriate multiplier in the present case wouid not be more than 10 in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of IVIunicipal Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported In (2C03) 8 SCC 731 whereln it was held thst in those cases where the ^; •./ '^ ^^y 1:>"'-'"- ,,-^^1 -'"—^ ctaimants are parfents of the deceased, the multipiier should never exceed 10; by multiptying the annuat dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the muftipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation which is less than the sum of Rs.2;03;000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 9) The appeal filed by the appeliants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge subbu