HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants 1-M: ' 1 Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 906 of 2007 1. Panchram, aged 58 years, s/o Shri Shobharam Sahu 2. Shyam Bai, aged 45 years, w/o Panchram Sahu, ..I 3. Minor - Johit Kumar, s/o Panchram Sahu, agedabout 16 years, through natural guardian mother Panchram Sahu, son of Shobharam Sahu AII residents of Village Chandai, P.S. Sarangarh, district Raigarh C.G. At present of resident of Mohtara, P.0. Manpasar, P.S. Sarseeva, Tahsil Bitaigarh, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Tejram @ Teja @ Ashok Tandan aged about 26 years, s/o Shri late Chheduram Tandan, r/o village Puraina, P.S. Dabhara, district Janjgir - Champa C.G. At present resident of Chhotekhaira, P.S. Sarangarh, district Raipur C.G. 2. Harvansh Kumar, aged about 33 years, s/o Shiv Prasad Ajgale, r/o Chhotekhaira, P.S. Sarancfarh, district RaigarhC.G. . ^ Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Respondents M.A.C.No.906of2007 •^: Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel forthe respondents. ORDER >th (08mAu9Ust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.08.2006, passed in Claim CaseNo. 130/2006. 2) As against the compensationof Rs.20,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of deceased Janakram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.03.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing oftheclaim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- only. 4) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, on ,the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has \< erred in directing the respondents to pay compensationMo the claimants. 5) As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the ;ts%... M.A.C.No.906of2007 ^< deceased was not of clinching nature, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal 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 of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Janakram on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and anotherreportedin (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reportedin (2009)68cci21. 7) The multiplier of 16 s^lected by.the Tribunal is also on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents and brother of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the caseof Municipal Corporation 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 of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of,the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceas^d or the \, . • • . . '^ claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ,^y\"^ 1 5 II /?. I", ^:..// lj,., '^?:"_^' :^^ss-s^ 4 M.A.C.No.906of2007 /C?7, subbu •^ of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge ^A