y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUN8L KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS CLASMANTS Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1022 of 2008 1. Puran, aged about 51 years, S/o Shyamlal. 2. Satwantin Bai, aged about 48 years, W/o Puran, Both Appellants Caste - Mehar, R/o Vitlage ~ Sambalpur, Thana Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Non-ApDlicant Nal Non-Applicant No.2 Non-Applicant No.3 Versus Narottam, S/o Bisahuram Dhruv, aged about 26 years, R/o Viliage Milauni, Potice Chowki - Maro, Thana, Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver) Shrisharad Dhruv, S/o Bisahuram Dhruv, aged about years, Village Milauni, Police Chowki-Maro, Thana, Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) Memo of Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri G.P. Kurre, iearned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (30th Juiy, 2008) f The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ;^-^ Shri G.P. Kurre, learned counsel forthe appellants is heard on admission. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Bemetara, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18-03-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 32/2007. 3. The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Khemlal @ Hemtal daimed compensation of Rs.19,36,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident, when on 11-02-2007 the T.V.S. Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 04 F 8301 on which he was travelling as pitlion-rider was dashed by the other Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 04 CQ 6558, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Khemlal @ Hemlal, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 12-02-2007. The ciaimants further pleaded that their son deceased Khemlal @ Hemlal used to earn Rs.220/- per day as an agricultural labourer. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that the claimants' son deceased Khemlal @ Hemlal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11-02-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 04 CQ 6558; as the offending Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The Tribunal finding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased unreliable, assessed his income on the basis of the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70.000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.55,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Khemlal @ Hemtal in the motor accident, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 6. Shri G.P. Kurre, tearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum; and in awarding Eow compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- only. 7. As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not found reliable, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income. The Tribuna! has been quite liberal jn deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as the deceased after his marriage could not have contributed 2/3rd of his income towards the maintenance of his parents. The multipljerof 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on < . {. i •t^lsi^MM^^^M^sM (tj ?»»i&£t¥%^§Si»-AKa-;. ^^a^!4^y«^%^fei^=^^,. ^^^^^^^^ 4 H, the higherside, in view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Municipal Comoration of Greater Bonfbav Vs. Laxman Iverand Another. reDorted in (20031 8 SCC - 731, wherein it was hetd that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 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 income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 9. The appeaE, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge