-'8 ~< :~*-t^1'"' 'b~.j";»e^it ''-.^-i ;^\(1 ^ ^. ^, .. <;• Ciaimants HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D'VlSiQN BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. Mlsc. ADpeal No. 20 of 2004 -w 1. Smt. Sundri Devi W7o Sri Rangnath Tiv/ari aged about 50 years. 2. Ransnath Tiwari S/o Sri Triveni Prasad Respondents 52 vears, bofh are Tiv/ari aged about 52 years, residence of vlilage Dhaba Thana - Kumhari, Tahsii & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 1. Ramnaresh Pandey S/o Sri Keshav Pandey, R/o Puran! Pandri Nska, Bhandara Road, Nagpur, Tahsil & Distt. Nagpur (Maharashtra) 2. The Orientai tnsurance Company Limited, City Branch No.3, Wes{ High Court Road, Varam Pet - Nagpur Through: Divisiona! Manager, Power House Bhllai, Tahsii & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Mssc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1388 15?00 Present : Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (Sth August; 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. •^ / This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the -*»> compensation awarded by the Fourth Additlonal Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Durg (henceforth "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 07.10.2003 passed in Claim Case No.47/2002. •^!9a^ I 1 ','^1. I 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortuRate parents of deceased Narayan Das by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death In the motor accldent on 24.11.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,65,628/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, tiH the date of actual payment. 3) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,65,628/- only. 4) True, the claimants pleaded in the clalm petitlon that their son Narayan Das used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as cleaner on the truck, the evidence of his mother Sunderi Devi before the Ciaims Tribunal was to the effect that her son Narayan Das was getting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. It is a different matter that the father of the deceased deposed before the Tribunal that his son was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. As the evidence led by the-claimants about the income of the deceased was discrepant, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.2,000/- per month on the evidence of the mother of the deceased. 5) In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month. 3 6) The Tribunal has been quite Hberal in deducting only 1/3 of ts.2,000/- towards the personat expenses of the deceased though the deduction In that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% as the deceased on the date of the accldent was un-mamed and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaiiy. 7) The multiplier of 1 6 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of GreaterBombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported In (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases, where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multipiier shouid never exceed 1 0. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multl.Dlier seiected. 9) The appeal fiied by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llabie to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed. ^- Sd/- CKiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge pacma