HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 172 of 2003 '<: ApDellants/ Claimants Respondents •i^c' 1. Bhagwati, wife of Yadram Sinha, aged about 42 years. 2. Yadram, son of Ramadhar, aged aboyt 44 years. Both are residents of Vilage Betardona, Tehsil Kurud, district Dhamtari(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Samlu Ram sonof Sonu Ram, agead about 32 years, resident Qf SuKurpal Kondagaon, Tehsil Kondagaon, district Bastar (C.G.) 2. Mohammad Idris, son of Harun Bhai residentof Rajapara, Kanker, District Kanker(C.G.) 3. The Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd. Near Adarsh Bai Ivlandir, Dhamtari,(C.G.) ^ 4. Rudra Pratap Singh, son of Asharam, resident of Amapara, h^nker, District tenker (C.G.) •\ (Miscellaneous appeal under Section173 oftheMotor VehielesAct, 1988} Present: 'Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for theappellants. ; Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ttff (20'nJuly, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awardedbythe Additional MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.09.2002, passed in Claim CaseNo. 254 of 2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ram Prakash Sinha, by filing a claim petition under Sec1|ion 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.06.2000,the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.2,76,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filingof the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,76,400/- only. 4) Ms. Sofia Khan, tearned counsel for respondent No.2 Mohammad Idris, the owner of the offending vehjcle, on the other .hand supported the award. 5) As the appellants themselves pleaded that their son deceased Ram Prakash Sinha used to earn Rs.2,500/- per month as driver and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,150/- taking Rs.650/- as daily allowance, the appellants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the incomeofthe deceased by the Tribunal. !/> S 'i I! ,'<r«-!-q& ~'5i ^ % tt. ifi '%,S!ac:f!,s "vt-!»!3-!!^ 6) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only Rs.1,300/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the incQme of the deceased in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer^ Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 7) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Gourt in the case of Municipal Corporaffon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer ancf another, reported in (2003) 8SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the muitiplier should never exceed 10. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not 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 orthe multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appetlants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. ~~~~'-, sd/- Ouef Justice Sd./- R.N. Chandrakar &' nimmi