^^ ^ .-A~~^' l/^-l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants/ Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 442 of 2010 1. Basant Singh (Maharath) S/o Anirudh Singh, aged about 50 years. 2. Smt. Bajni Devi W/o. Basant Singh (Maharath), aged about 45 years. Both are R/o. Nawapara Chhal, District Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents/ 1 Love Kumar Kewat, S/o. Shyam Lal Non-applJcants Kewat, aged about 27 years, occupation Driver, R/o. village Nirtu, Police Station, Sipath, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 Rakesh Agrawal, s/o. Balram Agrawal, occupation Owner of Vehicle R/o Agrasen Road, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3 Manager, National Insurance Company, B-1, Taha Complex, Priyadarshini Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) tlVliscellaneous appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct.1988) Present: Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants. QRDER (8tnJuSy,2010) The following order of the Court was -passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ .^E^^^ %•^•^ESg'•€v~'" Shri Vikas Pradhan, tearned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 02 of 2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.46,35,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Vijay Singh, by filing a claim pet'rtion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.30,000/- per annum only; Jn selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- only. 5) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Vijay Singh used to earn Rs.1,20,000/- per annum by plying a Truck, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased even owned a Truck. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal f^.\ ^ ^ in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate. 6) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of50% ofthe income ofthe deceased in view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 7) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Cwporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held 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 claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge