^ Ciaimants H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi T.P. SHARMA, J. IViisc Appeal (C) No.621 of 2008 1 Patras Ekka. S/o Late Mani Ekka, , Caste - Uraon, aged about 60 years, Occupation - Agriculture 2 Smt Anjeta Ekka, W/o Shri Patras Ekka, Caste - Uraon, aged about 58 years Both R/o Village - Basen, Tahsil - Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) Respondents Versus 1 Smt Rekha Devl Shah, W/o Shri Lal Babu Shah, Through : Joginder Food, Bus-Stand, Pathatgaon, District Jashpur (CG) (Owner) 2 Rajendra Ekka, S/o Rambilas Ekka, Caste - Uraon, Occupation - Driver, aged bout 40 years, R/o Village - Hardisand, PS Sltapur, District Sai^uja (CG) (Driver) 3 Unlted Indla insurance Company Limited, Branch OfRce, Raigarh (CG) (Insurer) Memo of Appeal under Section 173 of the !V!otor Vehicle Act. 1888 Present : Shri Roshan Verma, counsei for ttie appeilants. ORDER (15th January, 2018) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 2 ..<-y Shri Roshan Verma, learned counset for the appellants Is heard on IA No.1/2009, an appiication for condonation of deiay in flling the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submlssions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken In the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded In showing sufficient cause for the detay in fillng the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in flllng the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Roshan Verma, leamed counset for the appellants is heard onadmission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Acciderrt Claims Tribunal, Jashpur-Nagar (for short "the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.09.2008, passed in Ctaim Case No.8/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.50,25,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Barthloml Ekka by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accident on 08.07.2005, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cSalm petltion tlll the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Roshan Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatjon of Rs.1,77,000/- only. L . -.-. ..-'-?^ —^a '•-*&!.. .^^3'^. ^ /t^^" '% '*. ^ ^-T -sffj •s' ^ 8) As the evidence ted by the clatmants about the Income of the deceased was not found reliable bv the Tribunal, the income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal on its own estimate. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmamed on the date of the accldent; the claimants are his parents; and in view of the dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 10) The multipiier of 17selected by the Tribunal is atso 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 and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal fiied by the appellants / ciaimants for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liable to be dismtssed and is hereby dismlssed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJiistice padma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge