CL> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSV8S80N BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! N.K. AGARWAL, J. JVSisc. Appeal (0 No. 700 of 2007 ADpeliants Applicants RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS (DRIVER) (Owner) 1. Santram Mankar (dead) S/o. Late Chamra Mankar, aged about 55 years. 2. Smt. Malti Bai, W/o. Late Santram Mankar, aged about 51 years. Both permanent residents of Sanjari Thana, Doundilohara, Tehsil Doundilohara, District Durg (C.G.) Presentiy resident jn the house of Mankaran Prasad Mankar, Near Gayatri Tempie, Muktidham, Ramnagar, Bhiiai, Thana Supeia, Tehsli and District Durg (C.G.) Versus Appudas,. S/o. Lamani Das, aged 36 years, R/o. Post Fagdatiya Tada, Tehsil & District Bjjapur, State Karnataka, through - M/s Maruti Construction 17/E Ward, Nagla Park, Kolhapur (JVIaharashtra) (Driver of vehicle Dumper No. M.H.06/K/1582) IVI/s Maruti Construction, R/o Maruti Construction 17/E Ward, Nagla Park, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra) (Owner of vehicte Dumper No. M.H.06/K/1582) 2. (insurance Company) '\ The Oriental Jnsurance Co. Ltd., C.C. No. 1732, Chuappa, B.L.D.G. Line No. 13, Jaisinahpur, District - Koihapur (Maharaehtra) (Insurer of vehide Dumper No. M.H. 06/K/1582) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Ms Farah Minhaz, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned counsei for respondent No.3. O R D E R (11tnSeptember,2009) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Ms Farah Minhaz, iearned counsel for the appeiiants is heard on i.A. No. 01/2007, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Ms Farah Minhaz, learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 12th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.12.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No. 180/2006. 6) As against the.compensation of Rs.15,62,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Tameshwar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the r ,,^lt3%^, yv^-\ l'wl^ ^.sy^ ''^^^^•' Motor Vehjcles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,03,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actuai payment. 7) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in selecting the iower multiplier of 17; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,03,600/- oniy. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month. By deducting 50% of • T ' ' the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.900/- per month and Rs.10,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,800/-with the multipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,83,600/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under the other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,03,600/- as compensation for the death of claimants' son Tameshwar in the motor accident. 9) True, the cEaimants pleaded that their son Tameshwar used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as labour. 10) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per monthand^Rs.36,000/- per annum, the ciaimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as the deduction tpwards the pers^pnal expenses of the deceased would be 50% of the income of the deceased, because deceased was unmamed on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to .^, ^,^\ .^' '^UH^ 4 the claimants wouid have been reduced substantially; by multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multipiier of 10, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVJunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & anofher, reported in (2003) 8 SGC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases, where the claimants are parents of the deceased; the multiplier should never exceed 10; the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is less than the amount of Rs.2;03,600/-, awarded by the Tribuna! as compensation to the cSaimants. 11). For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12). The appeal filed by the appeilants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be djsmjssed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ padma \