^SSi^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANTS Claimants Before the Tribunal ,RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Before the Tribunal M. A.fClNo. 187 of 2009 1. Ramadhar Yadav, S/o Salikram Yadav, aged about 48 years 2. Smt. Mehtarin Bai, W/o Ramadhar Yadav, aged about 45 years 3. Mahendra Yadav, S/o Ramdhar Yadav, aged about 18 years All R/o Village Chunkatta, Post- Sailud, P.S.- Patan, Tahsil- Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. M/s Sai Mineral (Proprietor) R/o 1/3 Maitri Nagar, Rjshali Bhilai. P.8.- Newai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Truck NO.C.G.07-C/S941) 2. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, (DivisionaS OfFice) Permanand Bhawan, G.E.Road, Durg (C.G.) (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07-C/5941) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counse) for the appellants. sth ORDER (16tnFebruary,20Q9) The following order of the Court was pa^ed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counset for the appellants is heard on admisslon. M ff^ fete^ ''';i%^y^i^ "'^ V tw"^i '^^"^•^•:" ,'f 2) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.),Durg (forshort 'the TribunaJ') vide award dated 25.10.2008 passed in Claim Case No.40/2008. 3) The claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Surendra Yadav daimed compensation of Rs.11,12,200/- by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 02.12.2007. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted by the parties awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,67.260/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filingof the daim petition till the date ofactual payment. 5) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,67.260/- only though deceased Surendra Yadav would have extended support to the claimants - parents jn their old age. 6) Deceased Surendra Yadav, according to the claimants, was eaming Rs.3,300/- per month as Driver. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Surendra Yadav was also getting allowance of Rs.100/- per day. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/- per annum. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment ^•^-•^•""^ ^c;/" ...^-'^ "":^. ^ of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,600/-per annum. 8) The Tribunal followjng the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravindra and others, reported jn 2000 (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.13.200/- by deducting 2/3rd of the income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and would have been married in due course. 9) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, in view of the dtotum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxinan lyer & another, 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 never exceed 10. 10) We, therefore, 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 claimante' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplier selected. 11) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarlly. / Sd/- Chief Justice f ? subbu Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge