/^g^Sin-.^.n.A-* QW iN'i tLESi 1 Fhool Singh, Age - 40 years. S/o Late Saiharam. 2 Smt. Mayabati, Age — 37 Yrs. Fhool Sinah. ioth the above are R/o - Viilage - Badai, Post - Badal, P.S. Narharpur, Distt. tonker (C.G.) 3 Channu @ Sanju Nishad, Age - 22 Years. S/o - Jagdish Nishad Rh Viilage - Potiya - Kala, Durg, Tahsil - & P.S. Durg, Distt Durg (C.G.) ( Driver of the Truck No. C.G. 07/ZC/1156) Shiekh • Moidul, S/o Shri Shiekh Munirul, R/o Village - Marg - 44, Borsi Housing Board Tahsil - & Distt. Durg (C.G.) ( Onwer of the Truck No. C.G. 07/ZC/1156) The Oriental Insurance Company Umited, Through Branch Manager Office, Branch Office at Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Jagda!pur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) Present: Shri J.A. Lortani, counset for the appeliants. •th _/ The foliowina order of. the Court was passed bv ^ L,, Shri J.A.Lohani, learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 2) Appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 63/2007. 3). As against the compensation of Rs. 17,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Maituram, by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 31.01.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,78,800/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petltion tiil the date of actual payment. 4) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appeliants yehementSy argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income ofthe deceased at Rs. 2,100/- per month only; in selecting the iower multiptier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,78,800/- only. 5) The ciaimants themselves pteaded that their son deceased Maituram used to earn Rs.80/- per day as labour. Considering that the deceased may not be getting work for who!e of the month, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,100/- per month cannot be found fauit with. 6$ The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1 /3 of Rs.2,1 OO/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% v;@?;p"' -/' V .,,•-/' of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried and after his marriage his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaily 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 7) The multiplier of 1 6 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimanfs are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier shouid never exceed 1 0. 8) " For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd 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. 9) The appea! filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, ;s iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ^d/-^ ChiefJustice Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge subbu