.\- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants/ Claimants M.A (C) No. 279 of 2011 1 Beera Sen Shah, s/o. Chaturbhuj Shah, aged about 54 years. 2 Smt. Balmati Shah, aged about 50 years. Both permanent r/o. village - Gauregaon, Thana Bhatali, District Bargarh (Orissa). Present address r/o. Sinthil Transport Bhanpuri, Raipur Thana, Khamtarai, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS Respondents Non-Applicants Sukhdev Singh, s/o. Diwan Singh, r/o. H.No.461-462 Dhancha Bhawan Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur (CG). (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing Regd. No. C.G.04-A/8432) Smt. Malkeet Kaur, w/o. Sukhdev Singh, r/o. H. No. 461-462 Dhancha Bhawan Tatibandh Thana Amanaka Raipur District Raipur (CG). (Owner: of vehicle Truck bearing Regd. No. C.G.04-A/8432). The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). (Insurer of Vehicle Truck bearing Regd. N&. C.G.04-A/8432). ^ MemoofapDeal underSection 173 ofthe WIotor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (11th April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J; Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an . application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned 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.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.08.2010, passed in Claim Case No.07/2010. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Jeewardhan Shah by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14.04.2005 on ^yfceSis.s^'. ,;?":,-^ ~\ iff J "* t, I S '<;;%'-..''i^MS^?1 i': ^ ''^-'•'SSst 'Jjf '%.. ^,...^/ '^.t"^' account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,325/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the dece^ised; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,11,325/-only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Jeewardhan Shah used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum by working as Driver, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.40,000/- per annum. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 9) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Jeewardhan Shah was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the 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. ~^ ^ 10) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that the daimants are parents of the deceased does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and 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. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we 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 multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimantsfor enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^' nimmi