<^.^ \tA\\>v s/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQMBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA M. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Owner Insurer ^. Misc Appeal (C) No.1545 of 2009 1 Smt Bimla Sahu w/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 42 years 2 Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o late Binda Prasad Sahu, aged about 48 years Both R/o Purana Machhali Market, Popular, near Aata Chhakki, Camp - 2, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg PS Chhawani, District Durg (CG) VERSUS 1. Anit Kumar Gupta, S/o Raghunandan, R/o Gupta Kiran Sotre, Zone Khursipar, Bhiiai, Tahsii & District Durg (CG) 2. Manager, ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company, Unit No.304 - 306 III Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mal GE Road, Raipur (CG) ^ /' Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. ORDER ^th (10tn December, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. " Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. ^v 2) The appeltants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 55/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.10,67,800/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Manish Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 16.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.2,76,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in selecting iower muitiplier of 10 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,76,500/- on!y. 5) The claimants themselves pleaded that their son Manish Kumar used to earn Rs.3,300/- per month as truck driver. As the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month and 39,600/- per annum, the claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased bythe Tribunai. 6) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of Rs.39,600/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, though Jhe deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his %., ^. 1 ^^^y s:sss^ss^ ^ contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantialty and in view of the dictum of the 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) So far as the selection of multiplier of 1 O by the Tribunal is concerned, the same cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Coiporation of GrQater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, the multipjier should neverexceed 10. 8) Even assuming for the sake of argument that the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipai Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another (supra) would not be appiicable to the present case as the claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appropriate multiplier would be 13 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the same would not be of any substantial help to the appellants as after deducting 50% of Rs.39,600/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency would be Rs.19,800/- only; by muttiptying .this amount of Rs.19,800/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,57,400/-; by adding further sum of Rs.14,500/- awarded by the Tribunai under other heads, the :y^, •% Bfe l- \^:€. '^teEG^-'' <^ claimants would become entitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs.2,71,900/- which js less than the amount of Rs.2,76,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9) 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. 10) The appeai, fiied by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge