Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No.358/2005, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. r 0n due consideration of the submissions of Ieamed counsel for the parties; we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3. V M.C.P. No. 358/2005; therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 02-1 1-2004, passed in Claim Case No.81/2004. 6. The claimants, unfortunate mother and elder brother of deceased Hetram claimed compensation of Rs.26,25,800/-, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15-03-2004. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Hetram used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as driver. 7. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Hero Honda motorcycle. contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that deceased Hetram was driving Luna Moped after consuming liquor and the accident occurred due‘to his own negligence. \ /‘.:( WW B. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed by the» parties heid that deceased Hetram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15-03-2004; the motorcyclist of the Hero Honda motorcycie was responsible for the accident; as the Hero Honda motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the 'United India insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000l- with the multiplier 'of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,72,000l-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000i- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,76,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Hetram in the motor accident on 15-03—2604. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 10. Shri M.K. Sinha, learned counsel 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.2,000l- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,76,000/- only. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Hetram used to earn Rs.3:000/- per month as driver, but the employer of the deceased was not examined to substantiate the above ‘plea before the Tribunal. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per, month and Rs.24,000l- per annum. 12. The Tribunal has been quite iiberal in deducting only 1/3” of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses while assessing the claimants’dependency on the income of the deceased as the deduction in that behalf 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. -200‘(SC), could have been to the extent of 2/3” of the income of the deceased. 13. The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side as the mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipat Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & 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. . 14. 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 multipiier selected. 1.5. The appeat filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liable to be dismi ed and is hereby dismissed summarily; ‘ Sdl- Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha ChiefJustice T \ ‘\ x Judge nimmi