HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’ LE §HRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2003 Appellants] 1. Phoolchand Sahu, Aged 51 years, Sio Claimants Late Shivnath Sahu. Smt Vimla Devi, Aged 47 years, W/o Phoolchand Sahu. Suraj Kumar, Aged 28 years, Sic Phoolchand Sahu. Dheeraj Kumar, Aged 26 years, Slo Phoolchand Sahu. ’ 5. Pankaj Kumar, Aged 22 years, S/o Phoolchand Sahu. All Rio Ward No.18, Shubhash Nagar, Mahasamund, Distt Mahasamund (CG Versus Respondents 1. Bhushanlal, Aged 28 years, Slo ' Bhukhau Satnami R/o Viilage Gujra, PS Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil & Distt Raipur. (Driver of Vehicle) 2. Anand Ram Jolhe, Aged 43 years, Slo Dhanau Ram Jolhe, R/o Village Umaria, Post - Reewa (Lakholi), PS Mandir Hasaud, Distt Raipur. (Owner of Vehicle) " 3. National lnsurance Go Ltcl., BO Naveen Bazar G.E. Road, Raipur. -4Miscellaneous'a\ggal under Section 173 of the Mater Vehicles Act Present: Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants; ) ORDER (25* August, 2010) The following order‘ of the Court was passed by i Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 3 Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the appeilants is f heard on admission. i2) > The appellantSv are seeking enhancement of the V s compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 31 .01 .2003, passed in Claim Case Nor 09 of 2002. '3) A‘s against the compensation of Rs.65,02,000/- claimed by the appellants] claimants, unfortunate parents, brothers and other relatives of deceased Neerai Kumar Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the lVlotor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,90,000/— as compensation. along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sunil Sharma, teamed counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/— per'annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,90,000/- only. 5) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum which we have assessed on the basis of the notional income in the year 2002 in other cases of similar'nature, the _ claimants’ dependency would not be more than Rs.18,000]- as @ deduction towards the persona! expenses of the deceased would ‘be 50% of his income in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in 3the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus iMohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme 3Court Cases 225; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, 3the muitipiier wouid not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of :tQeApex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SC6—731; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to . Rs.1,80,000/—; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,0001— for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1 ,90,000/-, the same amount which the Tribunal has awarded to the claimants. ‘6) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. - l l Sdl- ll ll 11 ”a nlmml l Chief Justice t l a , 1 l , god?" sal— _ Tr/ wwwaw ,, a, ~