HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQN^ENCH CORAM: Appellants CIaimants HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.C.No.1157 of2009 1 Jagannath Verma, S/o Lsrte Makhanlal Verma, Aged about 50 years 2 Smt Usha Bai, W/o Jagannath Verma, Aged about 48 years 3 Shyamu Verma, S/o Jagannath Verma, Agedaboutiyyears 4 Sunny Verma, S/o Jagannath Verma, Agedabout15years Appellant No.3 & 4 are minors through natural guardian Father, All are r/o Vjllage Ghotwani, Tahsil - Damdha, Distt Durg (CG) RESPONDENTS 1 •NUIUNT VERSUS Pawan Kumar, Son of Dharichand Manjhi, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Udaipura, PS Vijaypur, Distt Gopalganj (Bihar) Present R/o Tiranga Chowk, Chawni, Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) Aditya Associates, OfRce Address - Qr. No.10/5, Road No.4 A, Mattri Nagar, Ruabanda, Risali, Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) ICICI Lombard, Brancb- DM Plaza, Chotapara, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) Head Office - Zenalth House, Keshavrao Khande Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 -A Misc. Appeal U/S 173 of Motor Vehictes Act. 1988. Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appettents. !1 C-; P%1^ ORDER (1st September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counsel for the appejlants is heard on I.A. No.01/2009, a petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions @f learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 65 days in fding the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 12th Addjtional Motor Accidents Clatms Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No.20/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.41,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brothers of deceased Ramu Verma, by filing a claim petition under Swtion 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^^^..^^.iaiaaS.^^^ r^^ y 7) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned 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 awarding low compensation of Rs.2,70.000/- only. 8) The claimants pleaded that deceased Ramu Verma used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Tailor in addition to his agricultural income. From para 20 of the award, we gather that the agricultural land was of claimant No.1 Jagannath Verma and not of the deceased. The evidence about the income of the deceased as Tailor was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal 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 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and after his marriage his contributlon to the parents and younger brothers would have been reduced substantially. 11) The multiplier pf 12 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the ease of Municipal Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyerand -^-"L IV ^ ^ ^ l'^.¥ '^..^•' 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. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants / clairdants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu