s^t!rr<!^"s uiiiicaius nnci M.A.I'CS. No. Jeetan Ram Singh, S/o Dasharu Casie Gond, Occupation - Agricuiture aged about 42 years. 2 Smt. Budhivari. V-J'o. i^asie loona, Jeetan R; led about years. Soth are R/o. Viliage Keshavnagar, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Sursjpur, District Surguja (C.G.) y^r%ai% ^^e ^^'hAv^ 'he Oriental insurance Com. Ltd. Through the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., iranch Office Ambedkar Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) »A Kamrujams S/o. Mohd, Tabsrak Husain, Caste Muslim, aged about 65 years, occupation - Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mominpura, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja ('C.G.) 3 Krishna Kumar Basor S/o Mohar Sai Basor, aged about 38 years, R/o Vilage Turiabira, presently R./o Luchaki Turiapara, P.S. and Tahsi Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Vehicle Driver i&l o'f m< i.ir'-! ^k^a * -Q< ^ s^r Smt. Pushpa Dwivedl, learned counsel for the appellants. ffS 'he following order of the Court 'was passed by '.^^^J Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants heard on I.A..NO.01/2007, an aDPlication for condonatlon of delav in fillna the appea!. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the detay in fiting the appeai. 3) i.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is aiiovved and the delay of one day in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Smt. Pushpa Dwivedl, learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Second Additional Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Sarguja (for st 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.11.2006, passed in Cl CaseNo. 121/2005. 3) As against the compengation of Rs.6,40.000/- claimed by the appe!iants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Raju @ Golu, a boy aged about 14 years, by filing a ciaim petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehscles Act, for his death in the motor eccident on 13.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% ^-^>___ ;.f''iSA-i^g;-5,, "0\ ^s^ %s.»rfs' ri^g^ pe.r annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date or' actuai payment. 7) Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only though the deceased would have extended areat support to his parents in their old age. 5) Though the claimants pieaded that dsceased Raju @ Golu used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month, it is difficuit to believe that a boy aged about 12-14 years could have earned to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month. In Tact, In the evidence of the claimants itself it has come that their son Raju @ Goiu used to assist them in their agricultural operations. As such, it is apparent that deceased Raju @ Golu was not having any independent income ot rtis own. 9) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as pieaded by the ciaimants, their dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as 50% ofthe income of the deceased would have to be deducted towards his personal expenses as he was unmarried on the da'te of the accident and after his marriage hls contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaiiy; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the permissible multiplier would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of '.orooratiQR of Greater Bonibav reported In (2003) 8 SCC-73; by multiplying the annual KS^SSis: a '•ssessj, s ^. . ^ s ^ K-J ^g' •i&;»<<- ..<" '^'^ss^^' dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80.000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, which is less than the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- avvarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the ciaimants. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. the appeilants/ ciaimants for 11) The enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is liable to be ismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge subbu