"a^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. AopeJiants RESPONDENTS M.A. (Cl No. 821/2008 1. Baiuram Kunjam, S/o Late Rajwa Kunjam, aged about 50 years, 2. Smt. Rameshwar Kunjam, W/o Baluram Kunjam, aged about 45 years Both R/o Village Bogatola, Post Somatola, PS Mohia, Djstrict Rajnandgaon (CG) Versys 1. Bhagwat Prasad Dhankar, S/o Maniram Dhankar, R/o Village & Post Arjuni, PS Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Subhtabh Poha Industries, G.E.Road, Rajnandgaon (CG) 3. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Umited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Miscellaneous Appeai U/S 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counse! for the appeilants. ORDER (31st July, 2008) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. r^ 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the AdditionaS Motor Accident CSalms Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Rajnandgaon, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05-03-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 46/2007. 3. The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Heeraman claimed compensation of Rs.39,70,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 16-05-2007, when his Motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle - Dumper bearing registration No. C.G.08 B 1156, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itsetf. The claimants further pleaded that their son Heeraman was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by running a Kirana Shop. 4. The Tribunat on a close scrutlny of the evidence led by the parties held that the claimants' son deceased Heeraman died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor aceident on 16-05-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper; as the offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the daimants. 5. The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, theciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. i By awarding further sum under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.3,03,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Heeraman in th'e motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- @6% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition till the date of actual payment 6. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued 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 on!y; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- only. 7. True, the claimants pleaded that their son Heeraman used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by running a Kirana Shop, but no documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to establish even the fact of the deceased running a Kirana Shop. tn this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. The Tribunal has been quite ilbera! in deducting the usual 1/3rd only towards the personal expenses of the deceased inspite of the fact that deceased Heeraman was bachelor and would have been married in due course and after his marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been substantially reduced. 8. The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of f<2^ '^sS^S^ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombav Vs. Laxman Iver and Another. reoorted in (20031 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that jn those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency assessed bythe Tribunal or the multipiier selected. 10. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge