r IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) M.A. (C) No. 2.^°) of 2011 8WI ^ APPELLANTS VERSUS REgPONDENTS :1 $- 2. ^ (- 3. Ratnu Nishad, S/o Shri Guhari Ram Nishad, aged about 50 years Smt.. Revati Bai, W/o Shri Ratnu, aged about 48 years, Both R/o Village-Sankra, Tahsil & District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Bodhram Sahu, S/o Dhaniram Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o Village- Bhathagaon, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil & District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Heeralal Sahu, S/o Late Shri Janak Lal Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Kaldabari, Post-Dumardih, Tahsil & District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : AWARDAMOUNT : VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs.13,50,_&00/- Rs. 2,OOT,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- In present case, the appellants are only challenging the multiplier applied by learned claims tribunal, therefore reduce the valuation of present appeal, according to the Rule 87 of Chhattisgarh High Cpurt Rules & Order MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT,1988 t s«l» *uBu.t,aa«Bni, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGj 1 a:'r M.A. (C^ No. 299 of2011 APPELLANTS ; Ratnu Nishad & another Versus RESPONDENTS : Bodhram Sahu & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.t Present : Shri Gautam Khetrapa!, Advocate for appellant^ None for respondent No. 1 & 2 though serv'sd. Shri SP Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. 2. •^ sed on 39;03;'2011) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard fina'ly. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Ist Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No, 165/2008 vide award dated 29.09.2010. As against the compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- claimed by unfortunate parents of deceased Heera Nishad by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles A.ct, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident dated 26,05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of appellants/claimants atong with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG- r1^"^ i ij ^ l&,.-rfi'?*f ! '^^;^. ^'"^^",.,y c- - 7. 8. 07-D-0113; insurance company tiable for payment of compensation as it could not establish breach of policy conditions; assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum; deducted 50 percent of it towards personal expenses of deceased, appliecj multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 20,000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased Heera Nishad along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till its actual payment. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has fallen in error in applying multiplier of 10 only and in awarding low amount ofcompensation. On the other hand, Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company supported the award impugned and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 10 by placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Another, and therefore, award impugned does not call for any interference. 1 have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of Tribunal including award impugned. The Tribunal, in its discretion, has selected multiplier of 10 placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Municipal 2003 (8) SCC 731 v V-:S2SS^^'^^\ ^ .; - y / . %,.'»'iv.y ^-, '?''"" ^1' ''•^^: .;• ^E^' Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer (Supra), wherein it has been held that in case where the claimants are parents, the multiplier should never exceed 10. Therefore, the approach of Tribunal in selecting multiplier of 10, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be found fault with. 9. No other points have been raised by the appellants. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ^^ ^"^ud^ Sahu ^^