HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH eliants . Smt. Gajara Devi Jain, W/o Uday Omimants ’ r Chand Jain aged about 45 years, house CORAM HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ ’ HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIV'AR SNHA J. Misc. Appeal No. 666 of 2002 1 wife. Udaychand Ji Jain, aged 48 years, S/o. Lakshmiprasad Jain. Ku. Anita Jain, agegi 21 years, D/o Udaychand Ji Jain (All Rio. Sadar Bazar, Nayapara, Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Prabhashanker Mishra, aged 41 years, Slo Housla Prasad Mishra, driver of Mini Bus, R/o Mishra Complex, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisionai Manager, Divisional Office, Kutcheri Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur, C.O. (Policy No. 31450201—22041 From 26413-2000 to 25—03-2001) Vibhashanker Mishra, S/o. M.P. Mishra, > R/o N.D. Tiwari, Block No.9. Room No.4, Hudco Colony, Police Line, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act A Rlesponden‘ts [i atese‘nt : Shri A:L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appeilant's. None for respondents No. 1 & 3 though served. Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.2. is claiman’ts’ appeal The folloyving order .of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. for enhancement of- the compensation awarded by the Motor Acc'idents C!aims Tribunai ‘Ralpur (for short ‘the Tnbunal) vrde award dated 27 06 2002 ; passed In Claim Case No 06 of 2000 2). i This 1 i \ r As against the compensation of Rs.43,00,000/- claimed by the appellants! claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Akhilesh LKumar Jain,. by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor ; accident on 06.07.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from thedate of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3)‘ oRnER. (1a September, 2010) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of [the entire evidence led Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. V before it held that deceased Akhilesh Kumar Jain died 0n account éof the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on‘ 06.07.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus. bearing registration No.’ M.Pr 23J 0359; as the offending vehicle Mini Bus n on; the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia %)/ 4) The.Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at v Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,0007— towards : I the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency t-was l assessed at Rs.1 O‘DOOI- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked outrto Rs.1,80,000/—. The Tribunal, l l thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,80,000/— as compensation to the \ claimants for the death of deceased 'Akhilesh Kumar'Jain in the l l l motor accident. E5) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants i vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the l l iclaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/— per annum only; and- in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,80,000f- only. 6) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - The New lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial i amount of Rs.1 ,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants. i 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Akhilesh Kumar Jain used to eam Rs.5,000/— per month as Accountant in a Rice Mill and was also earning additional sum of Rs.3,000/- by repairing electronic goods, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find 'any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence .ab'iout the income of the deceased. ‘ 8) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum on the notiona! basis, which we have held iii other cases of similar nature in the year 2000 the claimants’ depehdehcy would not be more than Rs15000/— per annum as 50% of R 30 OUOI- us hable to be deducted towards the personal expenses oti the deceased In View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court In the». ease ofx Syedr Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Moh‘ammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225; as the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, he appropriate muitlplier in the case would not be more than 10 in View of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Mumcrpa! Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731,\wherein it was held that in those c ses where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the ultiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the: annual ependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the ' compensation works out’to Rs.1 ,50,000/—; by awarding further sum of RsSOOOI- towards funeral expenses and Rs‘S OOOI- towards loss of estate the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum ‘ of Rs1 6D 000/ which is less than the amount of Rs1 80 000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation ) 5 For the foregomg reasons we do not find any scope for nhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. L) / e 10) enhancement 0f the compensation, therefore‘ iS‘iiable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 1 No order as to costs. 1) ~ The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for subbu Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE ‘