^ H|GH_COUR^TO.F_CHHATTJSGARHAT_BILASPUR. ' APPELLANTS 1. Smt. Anusujya VVd/o LaSe Shankar Das Manikpuri, aged about 40 y©ars 2. Ku. Maheshwari, D/o Late Shankar Das SVianlkpurl, agsd about 16 ysars, Through : NaturaE Guardian Mother Smt. Anusulya Bal, Wd/o Late Shankar Das Manlkpuri, Both R/o Viljage - HaJdi VVard No.45, P.S. LaJbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versys 1. Hemant Sahu, S/o ChhotelaJ^Sahu. aged about 38 years, R/o Sirrabhata, Post Tatenga, Tahsli - Lohara, District Durg 2. Vljay Bhushan, S/o Ganpat Sahu, R/o Shastn Chowk Ward No.16, Tu!sipur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At present R/'o Near Babu Aata Chakki, Keiabadl, Durg, Tahsil & 'District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Branch IVIanager, New insurance Company. Limlted, Branch OITIce - Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Dlstrict Durg APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHtCLES ACT.1§88 (Sjngle Bench: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. AaarwajA] PresenS : Shri Goutam Khetrapai. counsei aiong with Shri Avlnash Chand Sahu, counsei for the appeilants. ORAL._QRDER (Passed on 15 day of April, 2010) Thls is claimant's appeaE seeklng enhancement of compensation In the award datsd 30-09-2008 passed by Fsrst Addjtjonal Motor Accident Ciaims TribunaE, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal'} in CEalm Case No.15/2008 Vs^hereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,84,500/- has been awarded In favour of the appelEants and as against the respondents along with Jnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of appjjcation for the death of daughter of appeiiant No.1 <5 '^ 7. and slster of respondent No.2 j.e. MenaRa aged between 15-20 years. 2. The facts briefly stated are as ynder: That on 27-10-2007, Ku. Menaka (since deceased) aiong with appeliant No.2 (Ku. yaheshwari) whiie returning from thelr work place, dashed by Santro Car bearing reglstration No. C.G. 07 ZG 5983 and Ku. Menaka succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accjdent. 3. The appeiiants fjled an application under Section 168 of the Motor Vehlcies Act,1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs.21,59,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 5. The learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evtdence led, material placed and submissions made, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36.000/- per annum deducted 50% of' It tov^ards personai expenses of the deceased; iooRJng to the age of the claJmants and a!so looking to the fact that the deceased was unmarrled, the muitiplfer of 10 has been appljed and Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded towards toss of dependency. The iearned Tribunai has further awarded Rs.4,500/- on other heads and thus awarded a tota! amount of Rs. 1.84.500/- as compensation to the appeilants for the death of the deceased In the said accident. 6. Learned counsei appearing for the appeiiants would submit that the teamed Tribuna! has failen into error in awarding iow compensation. 7. I have heard iearned counsei for the appellants and perused the award impugned. 8. True the appeliants have pleaded that the deceassd used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month at the tlme of accident but failed to substantiate the sarne by adducJng cogent and oJinching evidence. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the tearned Tribunal has not commltted any error in' discardjng the evidence regarding monthiy income ofthe deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. 9. LooRjng to the fact that accident occurred In the year 2007, the Tribunal has rightiy taken the notjona! Jncome of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. __^—--"" "- ^ 10. !n view of the fact that the mother and younger sister are the claimants, iearned Tribunal has rightiy deducted 50% of tt towards personal expenses of the deceased and iooking to the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporaffof? of Greater Bombay vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, has rightly held that jn those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multlplier should never exceed 10. 11. Consjdering every aspect of the matter, the iearned Tribunai has awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation to the appeiiants which in the considered opinion ofthis Court isjust and reasonable. 12. For the foregoing, l do not find any substance in the appeat warrantlng interference of this Court. The appeal being devoid of substance Is Jiabte to be and is hereby dismissed. __ Kvr Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge