HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Cprani HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR S!NHA, J. Appellants Ciaimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1162 of 2009 1. Smt. Indrawati, W/o. Johan Singh Gond, aged about 42 years, 2. Johan Singh, S/o. Ram Ratan Gond, aged about 48 years, Both are resident of Village Podikala, P.S. - Pasaan, TahsH - Podi Uproda, District - Korba, (C.G.) at present House of Ghasiram, Village-Kotmi, Tahsil- Pendra Road, Djstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/ Non-applicants Versus 1. Ambika Yadav, S/o. Jawahar, aged about 42 years, R/o. ViUage- Kumhari, P.S. Pasaan, Tahsil Podi, Uproda, district Korba (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Brijlal Soni, S/o Jeevan Soni, age not known, R/o Village Sakola, Police Chowki-Kotmi, Pendra, Tahsil-Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner) 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer) Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of tte Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Present: Shri D.N. PrajapaU, leamed counsel f©rthe appeltenfs. ORDER (01st September, 2009) The following order of the Court was pas^d by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonatlon of the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learaed counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing suffici^t cause for the detay in filing the appeal. 3. i.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, te allowed and the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Acci<lents Ctaims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (for short, 'frie Tribunat') vide award dated 05.05.2009, passed in Claim Case No.34/2008. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- ©laimedby the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of cteceased Mahendra Singh by filing a claim petttion under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death In the motor accident on 23.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that ttw Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- only. 8. True, the claimants pleaded that their son Mahendra Singh used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Mason, but the evidence ted in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10. The Tribunal has been quite IJberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially. 11. The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that m those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summarily.— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ntmmj