HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH PHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.1235 of 2010 Appellants Ciaimants 4 Prakash Sonj @ Omprakash Soni, S/o Khuman Soni, aged about 41 years. Smt. Shail Soni, W/o Prakash Soni@ Omprakash Soni, aged about 39 years. Manish Soni, S/o Prakash Soni@ Omprakash Soni, aged about 15 yeare. Yogesh Soni, S/o Prakash Soni( Omprakash Soni, aged about 13 years. Appellants No.3 & 4 are minors through their natural guardian father Prakash @ Omprakash Soni: All R/o Village Hathband, Simga, District Raipur (CG) Tahsil Respondents Driver Owner Insurer VERSUS 1 Indradayal Chauhan, S/o Nathuni Chauhan, aged abtou 40 years, R/o Village Jahantipur, Police Station - Navhattha, District Rohtas (Bihar), at present residing at Pali Road Dipika, Police Station Dipika, District Korba 2 Jitendra Singh, S/o Nathuna Singh, R/o Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distrtet Bilaspur (CG) 3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance r Company Limited, GE Ptaza Airport Ysrwsrs, Pune - 411 006 (l\4aharashtra), Branch Shivmohan Bhavan, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil & Distrtet Raipur (CG) Insurer 4 New India Insurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, Division No.1 Jail Road, Raipur (CG) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehic!eAc;L1S88 Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counset for the appellants. ORDER ;th (15m December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.09.2010, passed in Claim Case No.112 of 2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,05,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brothers of deceased Kuleshwar Soni, by filing a claim petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,11,300/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. •a j s^ 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.^,000/- per annum; 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 ,^)0/- only. 4) True, the claimants pteaded that deceased Kuteshwar Soni used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a Ward Boy in a Private Hospital, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunat to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. 5) On due consideration, we do not find any inflrmity In the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 6) 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 in view of the faet that deceased Kuleshwar Soni wasunmarried on the date ofthe 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 Cases225. 7) Similarly, multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer >..feT~**^'- ./;;^t. 'R lt1r'^f ':-: •N- •i^.-;;. yy 4 andanother. 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. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do hot 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 multiptier setected. 9) The appeat filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi