HIH, COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILAsPU . .DNISION BENcul-I r! CORAM. HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GQPTA C J HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAK J Misc. Appeal (C) No.17?! of 2006 Shatrughan Sahu a u age 45 y'lears Appellants Claints 1 S/o Badrprasad ‘ S S Sri mt Rukhmanl h hatrughan Sah / l Both R/o Village — Khaprl Via Palan Dlstt Ralpur presentl R/o Mova Ralpur Dlstt Raipur , W Bai /o VERSUS @ N Respondents Nandu Sallkram aged 23 yrs S/o on-applicants Blsahat p Ram Sahu R/o Qhangorabhata Ralpur M/s Hora Transort Pvt Ltd., Fafadih Raipur United nsurance Company, Tara Complex GE Road Bhllal Distt Durg iscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of V Motor Vehicles Act Present - Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellant None for respondents No.1 & 2 Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for resondent No.3. p ORDER (17m February, 2011) d a The following orer of a the Court was pssed by R J. ajeev Gupta, Cz { G H R AR ma , i S u y r p i M ; s. . , The unfortunate parents of deceased Rajesh Sahu are the appeuants before us in this appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur(for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.40/2006. 2) [As against the compensation of Rsf.14,10,000/-, claimed by the appellantsfclaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Raiesh Sahu by filing ~a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 0932:2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,02,200/— as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% pertannum from the date of - the filing of the claim petition till thedate of actual payment. 3) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, 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.1 ,800l- per month only; in selecting/the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,02,200/-' only. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on‘the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,02,200i- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthe facts and circumstances of the present case, 5) in a motor accident claim case what is important istit‘at the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be //, just énd pfoper compensation in the facgs and circumstances of the case. lt’should neither be a meager anmiunt of compensation nor i a bonanza. ‘ i ’6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,02,200/— awarded by 'the Tribdnai is just and proper compensation inzthe facts and circumstances of the present case. > 7) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Rajesh 'Sahu used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Cleaner on the Truck, the evidence led in that behalf was not cf ciinching nature. in fact, the owner of the Truck took the specific stand before the Tribunai that only a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month was being paid to deceased Rajesh Sahu. The Tribunal taking a liberal View, has ‘ assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,800l- per month. ln this state of pleading and evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,800/- per month. 8) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 113m of the income 'of the deceased towards the personal expenses of the deceased though the deductlon in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the Income of the deceased conSidering that deceased Rajesh Sahu was‘unmarried on the date of the accident and in viewlof the dictum of the Apex‘Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammad Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 9) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on the I higher sieuin View of the fact that the claimants ar arents of the ’ " d e p i i deceased and m View of the dictum of the A ex Court in the case of Mumclpal Corporation of Greater Bomb y Vs Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, whjerein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10 . l 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do fnot find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased ‘or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 11) The, appeal tiled ~by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. l ‘ Sd/- Sd/- k J Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice l Judge