'^/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSVSSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Ap»ellants Ciaimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C} No. 905 of 2010 1 Ashok Verma, S/o Manglu Ram, aged about 42 years 2 Pyari Bai, w/o Ashok Verma, aged about 37 years Both are resident of village Khairtal, Police Station Bhatapara, District Raipur Versys 1. Basant Kumar S/o Kanglu Ram Dhruv, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Bangoli, PS Kharora, District Raipur (CG) (Driver of alieged vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.CG07-ZC/4429) 2. Shyam Nandan, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Nlbha, R/o Village Akalwara, District Durg (CG) (Owner of alleged vehicle Dumper bearing regjstration No.CG07- ZC/4429) 3. Santosh Verma, S/o Shiv Prasad Verma, aged about 48 years, Vice President of Janpad Panchayat Bhathapara, Dlstrict Raipur (CG) (Registered owner of alleged vehicle Marshai bearing registration No.CG.04- B/4847) 4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limjted, DJstriet Raipur (CG) (Insurer of Marshal bearing registration No.CG.04- B/4847) Insurance period 29/09/2007 to 28/09/2008) insurance PoSicy No.2008- 20914. Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe SVSotor Vehicjes Act Present: Shri VJjay Kumar Sahu, learned counsei for the appeilants. ORDER (3rd September, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants js heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of (earned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Bhatapara (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.04.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 07 of 2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.19,95,000/- claimed by the appetlants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Shailesh Verma, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on -r^ i 'tiig^l '^. v. .. '^ ^ 22.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the ciate of actual payment. 7) Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, 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 assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- only. 8) True, the cjaimants pleaded that their son Shailesh Verma used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as Driver, the evidence led in that behaif 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, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 10) The Tribuna! has been quite (iberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, thoughthe deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 22§. 11) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of .:-^^^ ,.f;^"lX ^' ^^. .^ the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municfpal Corporation of Greater Bombay \/s. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherejn it was held that in those cases where the clajmants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariK tu- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ntmmi