^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!V!S!0.1y BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MiSC. APPEAL (Cl No.1479 of 2008 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. 2. iSION-APPELLANTS: 1 Rewati Ram Sahu, S/o Bishahuram, aged about 52 years, Bindu Bai, W/o Rawatj Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Both Resident - Vlllage Patekohar, Thana - Chichola, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Ramharkh Yadav, S/o Nidhu Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o National Highway Corporation; TeSlbanda, District- Raipur (C.G.) Driver The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch offjce Kamthdine, Rajnandgaon (CG) P. Ramshirondmani Mishra, S/o Matashar Mishra, R/o Shiv Mandir, Moti Talab, Rajnandgaon Registered Owner The New Sndia insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Offtee KamthlElne, Rajnandgaon, Present Address Parakh Bhavan, Statlon Road, Durg (C.G.) jnsurance Company JtEIVIORANDUIVI OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE JVSOTOR VEHSCLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (12th November, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by _Ra!eevGUPta'-CJ-: (^ @ 2) The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.08.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No.04/2007. 3) The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Khileshwar ciaimed compensation of Rs.22,32,000/- by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 19.08.2005 when his Maruti Van bearing registration No. C.G.04 ZD. 8137 was dashed by the offending vehicte Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04 G.5914, resuiting in multiple serious injuries to Khileshwar; who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that thelr son Khileshwar was aged about 19 years and used to earn Rs.3,500/- per month from his shop. 4) The owner and driver of the offending vehicie truck did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied Its liability to pay compensation to the daimants on the plea that the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid driving iicence. 5) The Tribunal on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence ied by the ciaimants in support of their claim held that claimants' son Khileshwar died on account of the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was jnsured with the New India insurance Company Ltd., the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,750/- per month and Rs.21,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.21,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.14,000/- per annum. By mujtiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.14,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,54,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.18,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1 ,72,0001- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- from the date of fiiing ofthe claim petition tiJI the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assesslng his income at Rs.1,750/- per month and Rs.21,000/- per annum; in selecting lower muitiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- only. 8) True; the claimants pleaded that deceased KhJSeshwar used to earn Rs.3,500/- per month from his shop, but the evidence led by them in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income of the lii ^s^ /i.^..\ ^ T JJ '^ deceased and in assessjng his income on its own estsmate at Rs.1,750/- per month and Rs.21,0007- per annum. 9) The Tribunal had been qulte ISberaJ Sn deducting only 1/3rd of Rs.21,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was unmarried and would have been married and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaily. 10) The multjplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the hlgher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman fyer 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 TribunaJ 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, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _—^_, Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunilKumarSmha Judge padma