r c^ DIVISiON rnoRar^E NQh. ~^^ ^^ £^£'^5^ £tt 55 ^^ £^ ON BL^ S JEEV ITA r- EWE'^ ISE»E- •^n.iT^^ 6 t3'a-tih%.r^i¥i^^.} »?, Mif&^ &r EssBS^rf £^^ 1—1 ^ '»^Eirf^i?^.i^•^6^^'^ f*lM-USii®U6.S A ?«>.'"I'^^nf!^ /"ipMUv/d ilS ,1 ?-sfrk ^ns^r ll. -^fS'i-t P\t iQE ^i.^/^fi^ Si^ tif^t-^f/^ !F, ^^ ycai ts Sanait Ased Smt Kausrial, W/o Gooai Banast Aged auvUi. htv yssis 'fsmlst^h e^/rt f^rin^l R;3^?,if Arsprf ?th^E s^ SUHSS2?li. O/iiJ •^Sy^C^i E-S&i l&ii.. ^UCS^i CU^JUi <~^A ,.^—s-— ZAt VCfSlB Ail thi •'e are R/o GoDal AutQ r^^^S.^.^. /^/A\ R.<S—"!/.-,4- Cv^-^"» L^snxsr zit\) iVisrKs? snop M- R-t /' i ^ U .U I / ! Bhiiai Naaar. Sector - llllli hi^yv^^- T^^^tl O rM^iy',^^ Hiii^^ /r1^?1. r^ays.s, i CEUSU oc Uioiii^i uuiEy {•^"^sj ^ -••' ^ . „-. . ^.-.^ ,. .. ^.- -. ... ^ -^- -..^^ ^- - ^ :.T" ; 'SI SUi loneients 'hl l./k-^! E^fi i^^j S-QyM^^^S El. Joaender S'nah S/o Khalur Sinah, Aasd ^i^^.f ^ Q?r ca^/^/u't. ^..-^f C5 ^- f»w^/^ »^/» vs;a' o. rrt;s i f l&l i!c;i 6i.-<-i-QCS MUUI^OS? R/o .ViHage Kotni, PS Ranjeet Singh Koor Distt Jammu (J& K) Present Addres i/o New Nagpui SVIf £t'i^^y^^^ r^^w^^.i^^ 'QU^^^^v', E5/^;w,ii^ /r^-r^\ OUQSUiCT \^UU!pieA Oii<5UpUU f^CifpUI ^\^\^^ 2 (Driver ofTruck No.MP 23 D/6581) 1'31'ichhi;?' Pi.'rsrih !E tyH OH iMi <• A^./-./j ^.i^^f^ '3.H MV??U a^^ui ^v S/o Gurunam Sinah, rcslo, r\tu 'T^!'^ I ' i*t-"^ »^>-i ?- i telEUcsi E<i. Amanaka Raipur. Tah & Di.stt - Raipui f'r^r^\ {\^^3j 'Reaistered owner of Truck No.MP 23 r^ fes e ^ \ U/000I 'f 3. National Insurance Company Limited. t f^^^tf f?! fAf\t I'~^»'»••»/*;/•'t.f IIHUUyii ri.eyiuilal ivicllletyei Reaionsl Office, Akash Ganga Supela QU;3—;T—i-i oHnal, l ct| i "M^.a rs..-/" /'n/~*\ u-;5?E.i uuiy ^v^; (Posicy issued 01 !i¥ffiliUl D/6581) BhlVffiHd!) (iHi from Branch Office •T or Truck No.fvlP 23 ^ M»?lurVehicjc_Act, 1988 Present : Shri Vlvek Rathore, counsel for the appeliants. Shri Raj Awssthy, counse! for. respondent No.3. !eA|^fflB- 'aB^'^a-'^s'Srf^a-B ; ^W-^f^f The fo!i order of the Court was oassed Learned counsel for the parties are heard on iA No.1/2007. a petition Tor condonation of ffie delay in fillng the appea!. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned c.ounsel le Detrtion, we ai >atisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showina sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeat. 3) 1A No. 1/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delav in fllina the ipDeai is herebv condoned. 4) Shri Vivs i, learned counse! Tor ti heard on admission. >) The appellants are seekina enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additionai IVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.09.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 15/2004. 6) As against the compensation of R3.43,10,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Naresh bv filina a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accident in the /^^. '\ I t2.£& 1 '°k \.»^/ ff 3 ^ ittl \th intervenlria niaht of 9'" and 10*" of October, 2002, thfi Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counset for the appe'lants ve'nementlv argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in selecting iower muitiplier of 15; and in awardina low compensaiion of i.^,42.000/- onty. S) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Naresh used to earn Rs.13,000/- per month by working with Dr K Gurunath; by kina as scooter mechanlc and selting otd vehlcles ete., the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinchina nature. 9) iS; On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the sment of the income of the deceased bv the Tribuna! at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 10^ Ths Tnbunal h3-s bsen oults llbsrai In dsductina onlv 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behaif coulcs have been to th.e extent of 50% as the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and ifter his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been resuced substantiaSiy. 11) The multiplier of 15 seleeted by the Tribunal is rather on the hiaher side as the ciaimants are parents of the deceased and In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Cinrnnrati 1 r ? .••^ES^. ',-»-<"', ''•WS'i'-.si-- reported in ;C-731. wherein it was held that in those subbu cases where ths claimants are parents of the deceased, the muitipller shouid never excesd 10. 12) For the foreaoing reasons, we do not find anv 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 muitiplier seiected. 13) The appeal filed bv the appeiisnts /clalmants for inhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dssmissed and Is herebv dismissec! summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge