.. • '.. '\ '1fe ' ~;1.r-"7!'?.^ 15 lt ^•s':% j \:^-y '*Sl!KS-VS'v' •s;^ f;lir i"! lliIf 04 f\ .; ^' i^M^Qi ES' £?-a-i^E c^i s&iH yri t^s ^iji'yii- r^uivh IVtisc. Appea! (C5 (PR) No.23S8_oj (Claimants) 2. Kanhaiyalal, S/o Videshiram, aged about 44 years, Casts Rawat, Smt. Om Bai, W/o Kanhaiyalal, aged about 40 years, Caste Rawat, Soth R/o Vii!age Dokla, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 7.^ ..>& (Non-ctaimants) 2 Chunnila! Sahu, S/o Toran Sahu, R/o Viliage Jhalmata, Tahsii Baiod, Distt. (C.G.) The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Dlvisional Officer, Near Dsstrict Court, Raipur, Dlstt. Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appeliants. irdS The following order of the Court w/as passed by Shrl Shivendu Pandya, learned counse! for the appeliants is heard on admission. 2) Appellants Kanhaiyaiai and Smt. Om Bai are seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Additiona! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short 'the RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.03 16:55:40 +0530 .-I.AA ^ ••^'^ .'^^-"'y ^^ Trlbunai') vide award dated 04.02.2008, passed in Claim Case so.351 3) As agatnst the compensation of Rs.5,33,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dilip Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accldent on 11.01.2007, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as compensatlon Eong vi/ifh interest @ 6% per snnum from the date of filing of the claim petition tlll the date of actuai payment. 41 hri Shivendu Pandva, learned counsel for the appeflants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- only though deceased Dilip Kumar wouid have extended great support to the parents in their o!d age. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- tovi'ards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multipller of 16, the compensation was worked out to is.1,92,000/-. By av/arding further sum of Rs.7,0007- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Dilip irnar In the motor accident. 6) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionat income which we have taken in other cases of the year 2007, the claimants' dependency ^: wouid not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased v/ould be deducted towards his persona! expenses ss the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and after his marriage his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantialiy; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, appropriate multiplier would be 10 in vievv of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case or' ;cfi' Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, I, wherein it was held that in those are parents of the deceased, the Ina the annual reported in (2003) 8 SCC. cases where the claimants iLiStlDlier ?rt! in-rnEfor dependency of Rs.18,000/- with. the multlplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- tov'vards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to get a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation, which is less than the amount of Rs.1,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7) For the foregolng reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for inhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily on merits notwithstanding that it is hopelessly time-barred by as many as Sd/- ChiefJustice } Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge