HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEVISION BENCH Caram HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUML KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 20'i of 2004 APPELLANTS 1. Shri Argun Panda aged 49 years {:LAEMANTS sen of Shri B.N. Panda. 24 Smt. Parwati Panda aged 48 years wife of Shri Arjun Panda, Occupation — house wife, rlo at prasent Tekibanoha, Raipur (08.) Versus RESPONDENTS . Shri Kama! Prasad Patel son of NON-CiAlMANTS Jageshwar Patel, R/o. Bea" Singhpaii, Police Station Saraipaii Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2A. Smt. Janki Bai widow of Padumlal. Ganesh Ram son of Padum Lai 2.C. Saiikram son of Padum Lai. 2D. Siyaram son of Padum Lai. Aii are resident of viiiage Mutha nAHA rUIIUE oL‘aLiGi‘i DL I a‘amip’aii ngu-.‘nl. uiSu. r\ ll Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.1, Kachhari Chowk, District Raipur (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 GF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 Present: $hri PK. Tulsyan, learned counsel on behalf of Shri ‘ Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel‘ for the appellants. None for respendents No. l & 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3. . @ ORDER (29th July, zoos} The following order of the Cour’t was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: The appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased Devendra Kumar Panda are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded byvthe First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.11.2003, x/ passed in Claim Case No.10l'2003. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.16,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants for the death of their son Devendra Kumar Panda, aged about 27 years in the motor accident on 16.1D.2GG2, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.C.G.O6 ZD—2693 and the Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. O6 ZD—2514, resulting in multiple serious iniuries to Devendra Kumar Panda, who succumbed to those injuries, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs,2,42,000/— as N ‘ compensation aiong with interest @ 8% per annum from the date a 2;? of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3.’ Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/— per month; in selecting the lower multiplier of ’iO; in not awarding any sum towards ioss of estate; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,0001— only. 4. Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned counsei fm' respondent No.3 'the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, ‘ supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,42,00D/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5.- The claimants pleaded that deceased Devendra Kumar Panda used to earn Rs.4,000]— per month as Eiectrician. The evidence led in that behalf was not found cogent and reliable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on its own estimate. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the i income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3” of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf would have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased. 8. The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the claimants are parents of the deceased and in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer & another, reported in (2093) 8 SOC 731, wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. l P #ii,,as saw a? 9‘ The Tribunai has certainiy faiten into error in not awarding any sum to the ciaimants towards loss of estate. We, therefore; award a sum of Rs.5,0001’- towards Ioss of estate. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeai fiied by the appeliants/ ciaimants for enhancement ‘of the compensation is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2‘47,000i—. 11. Respondent No.3 The Orientai insurance Company Limited, is granted two months’ time for depositing the amount of Rs.5,0DO/—, now awarded to the ciaimants towards loss of estate} before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. _ f2: . No order as to costs. Mp t ,4 ‘ "/ K i V ‘i‘ ‘ l I .S(il’“ // , . sdi- _ e ’ ’ t ‘ ’ sunli. ' Kumar Steha u a menusuc- VJHE'QE X. j a nimmi