/y.. ^ .1 E^...... ^"l^.. 1.^^.1 ^SF^/^ %-^^ @) HIQH GOURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR DIVt^lbN BSNCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV @UPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANCIRAKAR, J Aopellantss Claimants Misc Appeal (Cl No. 1229 of 2008 1 GansiFam Sharma, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Mohanlal Sharma 2 Smt Prabha Sharma, aged baotu 47 years, W/o Shri Ghansiram Sharma Both the appellants are R/o VHIage Podiuproda, Tahsil Katghora, Distt Korba VERSUS Respondents 1 Rakesh Kumar, aged about 26 years, Driver S/o Budhbar Singh Binjhbar, R/o Village Choutiya. Tahsil Katghora, Distt Korba(CG) 2 Japendra Singh, S/o Dalvege Singh, R/o Budar, Halmukam Tifra Bllaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) 3 National Insurance Company through Branch Manager, Branch Office Korba, Tahsil&DisttKorba(CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectton 173 of MotorVehiclesAct Present : Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for the appellants. Shri BN Nande, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (01st July, 2011) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khatgora, district Korba (for short the Trtbunal') vlde award dated 06.05.2008, passed In Claim Case No.215/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23.0©,000/-,claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Jttendra Sharma, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.10.2DOS, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/~ as coinpensaUon along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal held the insurer of the offending vehlcle Truok bearing registration No.MP-18 H/2885 liable to pay compensatlon to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36.000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards hia pereonal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,56,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.3S,OOQ/- uncter other heads. the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,91,00^- as compensatlon to the clalmants for the death of their son Jftendra Sharma in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,91,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of flling of the olfidm petition till the date of actual payment. .:^ '33 4) Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yoge®h Chandra, learned counsel forthe appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the Income of the deceased and in assessing his Income at Rs.3,000/" per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deduGtin92/3"lof1heJncomeQf the deceased towards his personal expenses; in seleetlng fielower multiplierof 13; and in awarding low compensatSon of Rs.1,91,0€X)/- only. 5) Shri BN Nande, learned counsel for respond^it No.3, the National Insurance Company Limtted, insurer of ie offendlng vehicte Truck, on the other hand supported the wmr4 and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,91,000/- awarded by ttie Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6) True, the claimants pteaded that their son Jitendra Sharma used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by working as Supervlsor with a private contractor, no cogent and rellabte evldence was led before the Tribunal to establish the jncome of the deceased to the exlert of Rs.7,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribureil at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7) The Tribunal appears to have deducted 2/3r of the incoime <^ the deceased toward his personal expenses considering that deceased Jitendra Sharma on the date of the accident ws® unmarried and inview of the dictum of the Apex Court in the casQ ^S^i 4 c^) of Donat Loyis Machado and others Vs L Ravlndra and others reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Gourt Cases 633. 8) Even if only 50% of the income of the Gtecea®edis deducted towards his personal expenses and the daimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum, the appropriat®myltiplier in the case would not be more than 10, as the claimante are (Kirents of the deceased and in view of the dtotum of fhe ApexCourt in the case of Municipal Corporatton ot Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held thatin those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multlplier should never exceed 10; by mutttplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- wlth the multiplicr of 10, the compensation would work out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the clalmants would become entitled to re<»ivea total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation, whteh is less than the sum of Rs.1,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. . 9) For the foregoing reasons we do not ftid any seope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Triburaal. 10) The appeal filed by the appeltante/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. _____ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge