-/t-.p.^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appeilants Claimants IVIiscADDeaKClNo.1170 of 2010 1 Surendra Kumar Gupta, s/o Trivedi Saw, aged about 50 years 2 Smt Mira Devi; W/o Surendra Kumar Gupta aged about 48 years Both r/o Near Bus Stand Jashpurnagar, Tahsil & District - Jashpur (CG) \ -"-: Respondents VERSUS Shambhu Gupta, s/o Late Baldev Saw, aged about 35 years, Occupation Business r/o Village Baniyatoli, Jashpurnagar, District - Jashpur (CG) (Owner) Wiliam Khalkho S/o Tairas Khalkho, aged 35 years, Occupation - vehicie Driver, r/o village Boki, Tahsil & District Jashpur (CG) (Driver) National Insurance Co Ltd., Local Branch Qffice - Priydarshni Nagar, Bilaspur, District - Bitaspur (CG) (insurer) Miscellaneous Appeai under Sectibn 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Shri AK Prasad and Shri Roshan Verma, counsei for the appellants. Shri BN Nande, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (20tnSeptember,2011) ^s^ y ^^ I MAC No.1170 of 2010 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.07.2010, passed in Claim Case No.06/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.29,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Pravesh Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for his death in the motor acddenton 26.04.2006, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1,97,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that claimants' son Pravesh Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Botero Jeep bearing registration No.CG-14/6192; as the above offending vehicle Bolero Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Companycould not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. ;.^,f:"^. "^' ^... J Ite^. '^•^2^^ MACNo.1170 of 2010 ©) '.e 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunat have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day; Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.28,800/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.14,400/- perannum. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.14,400/- with the muitiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,87,200/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,97,200/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of their son Pravesh Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,97,200/- @ 6% per annum from the dateof the filing of the claim petition tiH the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AK Prasad and Shri Roshan Verma, learned counse! for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.80/- per day, Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; jnselecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.1,97,200/- only. 7) Shri BN Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending ,.--^.'.,<,\ -:^'&s:& 1 %.. ^^ MACNo.1170 of 2010 ^ vehicle Bolero Jeep on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,97.200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Pravesh Kumar used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Supervisor with a Contractor namely Ashish Kumar Singh, the evidence ied by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Though the claimants examined Ashish Kumar Singh as witness before the Tribunal, no supporting documents/records were produced by this witness before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.28,800/- per annum. 9) The deduction of 50% of Rs.28,800/- by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses 6f the deceased also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Pravesh Kumar on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameei and another reported In (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 10) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceasecj, and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mianicapai Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Syer ...^•^•-..... yp-\ '^ S %s^ 1 MACNo.1170 of 2010 ^ and 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. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we 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 appeai filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJusdce Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padmaF' "S-;-"-A