. ‘ ‘Appe‘l‘l‘aiit’s icmmmn$"=- mba(C .r‘rKG) 1_VSa, ‘ ERSU , agar Korba PS Tah & Dlstn r Korba (CG) (Driver) 'Road Korba Tah & Dlstrlct Kor (CG)(Owner) ' » 3.? ‘The Orienta _, Throug ~ Maln Read Korba Dlstrlc Kor , y ' (CG) (insurer) MISC AP' EAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTO VEHICLES ACT 5S Vé el r'tpts hri RaVIsh rma, couns fo?he*a‘p’ellan ‘j N c ba w l W h ba R Smt_. Chitra Shriva'stava, j o3 0 . ‘ 3 v nsel for respondeh U t RDER 9th March, 2‘01 1 ) u" w f The 'fo‘no'wirwg 6rder of the: C§o* as passé-d by R . ajeev Gupta, CEJ 9.0.2006,: passed in Claim Cése‘Np'.2072005 23 '. ) ' As against the compensation of Ré.30,00,000/7 claimed b par‘enfs' ’a’nn siste ‘ecéa’sed Amit Th‘a‘k’uT, by fili’n‘ a cl‘a’irn ‘pe‘’tition’undef Sectio ’d g n 1‘66 of r ‘ n a htj 1 , i ia' compensation aIQng With ’infterestv@ 6% per annum fromr‘the‘ dat o f t f filing of the ‘Claim petition till the date o actual paymen. ) Shri Ravish Verma, teamed cauns'el for the ap‘pe‘ifa’ri eh’em’entl arguedithat the Tribun'al has erred in de‘d:ucting‘50° “of th inco o e : eI’e‘ctig the IOWer Imul‘tipli’er of ‘11; and “in awarding lo VSn w om 4) S dn mt. Chit‘ra Shrivastava, ie’a‘rn‘edic’ounSel‘ fortrespr ae 2 y he appellénts/ claimantsr, u‘nfortuna 't t the Motor VehiCIes Act, forthis deathon 1411,2004 o oCOunt of the injuries';_s,u"stair’ie'd_ by hi‘mln ’the motoracci‘de‘ 3.1 1 .2004 the TribuniéI awarded'a tota‘ sum “of Rs;’5-,i'5f8i obi '3 ts' Vy /c): e me f the deceased'towa‘rds‘his’ personal x en'ses c N. O , ( ,- r e Cpensation of Rs.5,58,00'0/-'on|‘y". Rs 5 58 000/- as compensation to the clalmarits Whb;a’refp:aféfrj ' of th‘e’deceased I 7 5): The clalmants cannot have any legitimate grievance abo ' ‘the assessment of the Income of the deceased by the Tnb al r Rs 8 OOOI- per month as they themselves In their clalm petiti th; ut a a on 1 pleaded the linc’ome' of the deceased at;.Rs.8,000/- per mon '_} only b Vf 6') The deduction of 50% of the Income of the deceased y the Tnbunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased al ai: L cannot be found fault With consuderlng that deceased Amlt Th on the date of the acc1dent was unmarned and In View of 7 ‘dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Syed Basheer Ahamedi’ “and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reporte in'(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. _' I 7 ‘7 ‘ ;7)’ The muiltiplier of ‘1‘1 selected by the Tribunal is’rath‘er on the higher Side In View of the fact that the claimants are parent L and Sister of the deceased and In View of the dictum of the Ape y Court In the case of Municipal Corporatron of Greater Bomba ‘Vs Laxman Iyer and another reported In (2003) 8 SCC-731 V :Lwhereln It was held that In those cases where the claimants unparents of the deceased the multlpller should never exceed 10 < 8) For the foregomg reasons we do not find any scope fo nhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal w fs so; V I” d e” s M x y I a h r e '9 s s )‘ Th’e‘ ap‘ééI 'flle'd byhe Taliip'eJHérritsil calman fe ? y ’nha‘ncem’e‘nt of the co'mpe‘hTs‘étion,"t efefre‘, fails ahd I-s hereb d dismisse. o order as to costs N . Sdl- g' rakar Rannath Chand Judge d/ hie S— Cf Jusiice .