HIGH COURT E§HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR - _ DIVISION BENQH HON’BLESHRI RAJIEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.(c1 No. 129 of boos Ghasiya Ram Yadav, S/o Late Ramaram Yadav SQ years. Smt. Parvati Yadav, w/o Ghasiya Yadav 42_ years. " Government Post—Bhanpuri, . CORAM: APPELLANTs 1 (CLAIMANTS) Both R/o ‘ ”Behind Hospital, Bhanpuri, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus Suresh Kumar Sethiya, S/o. Mansa Ram Sethiya, ‘r/o Mahavir Chowk, Narayanpur, Distt.- Bastar. Bastar Travels, Narayanpur, Through : Mohan Lalji Gogad, R/o Mahavir Chowk, Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar. The New India Insurance Company, Through 5 Branch Managerr Jeypore Road, Jagdalpu'r (C.G. RESPONDENTS 1. mow- ' APPLICANTS) MISCELLANEOUS ' ~ ~ " ¥ MOTOR APPEAL VEHICLES UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ' ACT Santosh Bharat, learned Preseni Shri Prafuu Bharat and Shrr counsel for the apellants. RDER (8m May, 2099) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellants are heard on MOP No.1553/2006, a petition for condonation of delay in tilin the appeal.” ‘\ w 1 : p O g / \ 1 1 2) On‘due consideration, we are sati§sfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufflcient,ca:use for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.1553/2006, therefore, is etlowed and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned: 4) Learned counsel fOr the parties are heard on admission. 5)‘ The appellants are seeking enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur vide award dated 27.04.2006 passed in Claim Case No.32/2005. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.20,80,000/—, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents ofdeceased Paras Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles ‘Act, 1988 for his death in the motor accident on 01 03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,80,52/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per. annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing hisincome at Rs.2,500/— per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum only; in selecting lower multiplier of 15, land in awarding low compensation ofl\Rs.2,80,052/- only. 8) The claimants pleaded that deceased Paras Yadav used to earn Rs 1O 000l- per month by running an electric store In Village I Bhanpun A copy of the income tax return produced before the x w Tribunal for the assessment year-2003 — Q4 disclosed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/—. EVen if the income of the i deceased is assessed on the basis of abov§e income-tax return at Rs.48,000/- per annum, the claimants' dependency wouid not be more than Rs.24,000/- per annum, as the deceased was un—married and his contribution to the parents after his marriage would have been substantially reduced. :As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the permissible‘muttiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bambay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 366-731. By' multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation would work out to Rs.2,40,000/—. Even if Rs.5,000/— are awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000f- for loss of estate, the total amount of compensation would Come to Rs.2,50,000/-,’ which is much less than the amount of Rs.2,80,052/—,. awarded by the Tribunal. 9) We. therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby /\ dismissed summarily. l r l l Sal- it , \ v . k sunit Kumar smha ‘ sw- Judge "~ Chief Justice 9 pad ma