^.e-/^. HlGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHAtBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPtA,CJ. HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKARJ. Appellant Olaimant f. ia 0 ResDondents f: Misc.ADDealNo. 1042 of2004 Aahilya bai w/o Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/Q Sakti Sucihwari Bazar near Gbpal Talkies PoJice Station Sakti, distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G). Versus 1. Urmila Singh Gautam w/o Gopal Singh RA3Korba Qt.No. MIG 125, MRPNagar Korba Poljce Station Korba, distt. Korba (Owner of the offending yehicle) 2. Mohmmad H aged about 35 years, R/o Kuwabhatta Korba, Poliee Station Distt. h^rba (C.G.) (Driyer of the offending Ivehicle) 3. Budheswar Prasad S/o 1-ieeraram ;aged about45 years. 4 Rameshwar Prasad S/o Heeraram; both or R/o Budhawari Bazaar Sakti !near Gopal Talkies Sakti Th. Sakti pjstt. ^anjgir Ghampa (C.G.) ; -^^-^ 5 National Insuranee Company Ljmited yBranch 13 Meeriu Complex Kosabari ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ (Insurer) MiscellaneousaDDealunderSeGtion173ofthe IVIotorVehiclesAct Present: ShriP.K.Patel,leamedcounselfortheappellants. None for responcients NQ. 1,2 & 3. Shri | Anil Gulatr, learned counsel for respondent No.4. € .t Shri Sudeep Agrawgl, leamed courisel for respondentNo.5. ORDER (19th October, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Ra|eevGupta,CJ. Appellant Aahilya bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, district Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunar) vide award dated 17.07.2004, passedinClaim Gase No.37 of 2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.73,19,500/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Sahdeep Sahu, by fjling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the mdtor accident on 01.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from thedate offiling of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led -..-^-,- •1 ' ' .,, \ ' .- ; 111 . ^ !: 1 : before it held that the claimant's son Sandeep Sahu died on account of the injuries sustajned by him in the motor accid^nt on 01.01.2003;theaecidentoccurred due to the negligence of both the drjvers i.e. Mahindra Utility bearing registration No.C.G.11ZD/0103, which the deceased himself was driving and the other vehicle Truck bearingregistrationNo.C.G.-l 2/9233; both the drivers equally contributed to the accident; as the above i.to^S^I- |lt.l?;f-'"'~5..|. i^^^.N'y' |i:l.'l.'^tesA!4T; f. ,5 •^' :^' vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was jnsurei the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance CGmpanycQuld notestablishany breach ofthepolicyconditions, the Insurahce Gompany was liable to pay 50% pf the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. 4) The Tribunal assessed the incQme of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed •at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- w'rth the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal assessed the totai compensation at Rs.3,62,000/-. As the deceased himself was found tiable tojthe extent of50%, the insurer of the Truck was directed to pay 5Q% of Rs.3,62,000/- i,e. Rs.1,81,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her son Sandeep Sahu in the mots^. accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/-@ 7% per ahnum from the date of filing of the cjaim petition till the date ofaetual payment. 5) Shri P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribynal has erred in holding that deceased Sandeep Sahu also contributed to the accident to the extent of50%; jn not accepting the claimant's evidence aboutthe f M ~N>- ^-" 4 income of the deceased and in assessing his 'iocQRFt^ at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,81,000/-only. 6) Shri Sudeep Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent NQ.S, National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation Of Rs.1,81,000/- awarded by the Tribynal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 7) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for responcjent No.4 Rameshwar Prasad also suppbrted the award. 8) So far as the finding recorded bythe Tribunal holding that deceased Sandeep Sahu who was driving Mahindra Utility vehicle also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, it is apparent from the evidenee available on record that only the vehicle of the deceased i.e. Mahindra Utility vehicle was moving at th^jyime of the accident and the other yehide Truck was stationary. In the above factual scenario and the evidence available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the; Tribunal. In our Qpinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Sandeep Sahu who was driving Mahindra Utility vehicle and dashed the same against a stationary Truck also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. .-^, 'M "%;; • ^ l^-^J it.'-'t^y .^ y ::^r- '^ 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensationinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that her son Sandeep Sahu used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by seliing ready-madeclothes, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The claimant did not examine any shop-keeper from whom the deceased used to purchase ready-made clDthes. It was not the pase of the claimant that the deceased himself was manufacturing ready-made clothes. In this state of evidence, we do not findany fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting oniy 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in ^the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 12) The multiplier of 15selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side as the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimant is his mother, whose husband was alive on the date ofthe accident andwas impleaded in the claim petition as noh-appljcant No.4 and in view of the dictum of the :'£'ff^'!&I&^%.':fi tfl.;-''' rl x.'- 1-Afr 1.^/ M 6 Apex Court in the case otMunicipal Corporation af Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyerand anofher, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancementofthecompensatibnawardedbytheTribunal. 14) The appeal flled by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- 1 Sunil KumarSinha Judge ^" i?-- -.-^?".