. .a fe fs^is&Sti.a^&^sSs^iS A-^-^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram APPELLANTS [Claimants] HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR S1NHA, J. M.A. (C) No. 190 OF 2009 1. Derha Ram Jangde, Age - 55 Yrs., S/0 Late Rajou Ram Jangde. 2. Smt. Kanchan Bai, Age - 50 Year, W/o Derha Ram Jangde, 3. Ku. Khemin Bai, Age - 18 Year, D/o Derha Ram Jangde 4. Ku. Purnima Bai, Age -12 Year, D/o Derha Ram Jangde RESPONDENTS/ Non-applicants the appellante no. 04 is Minor and is being represented by appellant no.1 father in relation. All the above are R/0 Vitlage- Sandi. Post Bhansoj, P.S. - Mahasamund, Tahsil - &- Distt. Mahasamund [C.G.] Versus 1. Mootchand, Age - 29 Yrs. S/o Shri Manrakhan Sahu, R/0 Village:- Borsi,.S. & Tahsil Rajim, Distt.Ralpur[C.G.] [Driver of Truck No. H.R.-55/B/- 1072] 2. Sawarn Singh, Age - 40 Yrs. S/o Shri Surjit Singh Chowla, R/o: Station Road, P.S. Mahasamund. Distt.:- Mahasamund (C.G.) [Owner of Truck No. H.R.-55/B/- ' 1072] ^, ; /^--^ ^ v: S'^\ t '""r^^ .1: '^ ^^^ v^.^'-/ :^^^-..-"'~ v% 3. The Oriental tnsurance Com. Ltd. Through The Divisional - Manager, at Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur Distt. Raipur [C.G.] [insurance Com. Truck No. H.R.- 55/B/-1072] MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, tearned counsel for the appeltants. ORDER (25tnFebruary,2QQ9) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of delay in flling the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submisstons of learned counsel for the appellants, I.A. No.01/2009 is allowed and the delay of four days in fillng the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 4. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 01.10.2008, passed in CIaim Case No.06/2008. 5. As against the compensation of Rs.23.^3,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sisters of deceased Basant Kumar Jangde, by filing a claim petition under —^^ _ ^y^'^ ~l'^ ^-^:^<; 1 '^ss^ \fcf- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor acddent on 14.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsei 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.3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- only. 7. True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Basant Kumar Jangde used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month as driver. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence of A.W.-3 Pannelal found that the evidence of this witness was not reliable. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8. On due consideration, we do ncrt find any inflrmity tn the assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased bythe Tribunal. 9. The Tnbunal has been quite libera! in deducting only 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 2/3rd of the income of the deceased in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravindra and others, reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), as 1 ^^ deceased Basant Kumar Jangde was unmamed on the date of the accident and would have been married in due course and after his marriage his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially. 10. The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the ciaimants were parentsofthe deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the multiplier in those cases, where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, should never exceed 10. 11. 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 claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12. The appeal filed by the daimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu i Sd/- ( ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r ^