HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHR1 N.K.AGARWAL, J. AppelSants (Ciaimants) Mlsc. Appeal (Cl No. 645 of2007 1 Devnarayan Vishwakarma, Aged about 45 years, S/o Rooplal Vishwakarma, 2 Smt Dulmani Vishwakarma, Aged about 40 years W/o Shri Devnarayan Vishwakarma 3 Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma, Aged about 17 years 4 Rohit Kumar Vishwakarma, Both are S/o Devnarayan Vishwakarma 5 Roopla! Vishwakarma Aged about 70 years, S/o Shri Bangali Vishwakarma 6 Smt Jeeramati Vishwakarma, Aged about 65 years W/o Rooplal Vishwakarma All are resides at Village - Bhothali Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1 Shri V. Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Shri Tamalayya Rao aged 30 yeaps, R/o Pullur, Thana - Mahilawaran Distt Krishna (Andhra Pradesh) 2 Smt P Jhansilaxmi, W/o Shri Baburao, Aged years, R/o D-No.40-6-6 h^iandari Lane, Revenue Colony Vijayvvada (Andhra Pradesh) 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijaywada (AP) Through Divisional Office, G.E Road, Raipur (CG) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Respondents Non-Claimants Present: ShrM.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. "- ^ --—— (g) ORDER Bth (14tn September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsei forthe parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) J.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.230/2005. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, younger brothers and grandparents of deceased Vimal Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,6^,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from tfeie date of filing of the claim petjtion till the date of actual payment. r ^"< . l ^^, ^^y 7) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- only. 8) The claimants pleaded that deceased Vimal Kumar used to earn Rs.1,25,000/- per annum from Agriculture and Milk Dairy. The claimants could not adduce cogent and clinching.evidence in regard to the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,25,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 9) In view of the evidence led by the claimants, about the income of the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses considering that deceased Vimal Kumar was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage his contribution to his parents, younger brothers and grandparents wouid have been reduced substantialEy. 11) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in ytew of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of \ Misnicipal Co^poration of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman.lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein tt was held that in subbu those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 12) We, therefore, 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 Tribunai or the multiplier seiected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge A. p» |-i"^L^K-T--^ -\