HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA,J. APPELLANTS CLAJMANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.fONo. 739 of 2008 T. Thakur Karn S/o Kartik Karn, age 47 years, r 2. Smt. Umakanti Karn W/o Thaftur Karn, aged about 42 years, 3. Pratap Kam, aged about 20 years, 4. Manoj Karh, aged about 17 years, 5. Ku, Diponi Karn, aged 16 years, 6. Ku. Parmila Karn, aged about 14 years. Appeliants No.4 to 6 through natural guardian Thakur Karn. Appellants NQ. 3 to 4 son of Thakur Kam and No.5 to 6 daughters of Thakur Karn, All Viltage - Jhilmila, Check Post Sarypali, Thana and Tah. SaraypaSi, Distt. Mahasamund Versus 1. Ramkumar S/o Vishnu Saw, aged about 32 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Jone -•2, Road No.1749 House No.E/9 Khurshipar Bhilai, Distt, Durg (Non-ApplicantNo.1)(Driver) 2. Sardar Karnal Singh, S/Q known, Centrai Kargo Movers, Transport Nagar, Bhilaj, Distt Durg (C.G.) (Non-AppSicant No.2) (Owner) -^' The New india Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office - Jaii Road Madina Buijding, Raipur(C.G.) (Non-Applicant No.3) IVIanjit Singh Saluja, Aged known, S/o Sardar Nanak Singh, Check Post - Jhilmiia, SaFaipali, Dlstt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No.4) IVIIscellaneousADDeal U/S 173 ofthe IVibtorVehicIes Act. 1988 Present : Shri Prasoon Goel, counsel for the appejlants. Order (24tnJune,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel forthe appellants is heard on admission. 2) The claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principal Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.02.2008, passed in Claim Case N6.162/2006. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- claimed by the cjaimants, who are parents, brother and sisters of deceased - Paramanand Karn, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,22,040/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date qffilingoftheclaimpetitiontiilthedateofactualpayment. 4) Shri Prasoon Goei, learned counsel forthe appeJlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income ofthe deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month only;inse!ecting lower muitiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,22,040/- only. 5) Deceased - Paramand Karn was working as a truck driver. The accident occurred in the iyear 2006. Even the daimants pleaded that the deceased Iwas getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In this view of the matter.assessment ofthe income of the deceased bythe Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month, we are satisfied, does not call for any interference in this appeal. 6) The muEtipIier of 10, selected by the Tribunal also can not be found fault with as the claimants were parents of the deceased, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Misniclpa! Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxmanlyer and another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 73f, wherein itwas held that where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multipiier should never exceed 10. 7) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby djsmissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge