HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants M.A.(C)No.91of2010 1 Raghunath Ram s/o late Bhaglu Ram, aged about 50 years, Occupation - Agriculture <~ 2 Smt Basanti Devi w/o • Raghunath Ram, aged about 40 years Both R/o Village Putrichaura, Post Lodam, Tahsil & District Jashpur Non - Applicants Respondents VERSUS Shambhunath Sahu s/o Rameshwar Sao, R/o Village & Post - Lodam, Tahsil & District Jashpur (CG) Owner Jeetbahan Lohra s/o Bahuran Lohra, aged 29 years, Occupation - Drive, R/o Munmer Naga Toli, PS Palkot, District - Gumla (Jharkhand) The National Insurance Company Ltd., through - Branch Offlce Raigarh, District - Raigarh (CG) Insurer Appeal U/S. 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. Present: , Shri Roshan Verma, counsel for the appellants. N |!;i ORDER >th (29tn January, 2010) s ^ h; The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Roshan Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated. 30.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.30/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.19,38,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfori:unate parents of deceased Lakshman Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.03.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,98,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. The Tribuna! found that deceased Lakshman Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.03.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor; as the offending vehicle Tractor, on the date of the accident, was insured with the National tnsurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per^day; Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per ^ ^St"'^- 1 %!>, \ . -- \ annum. By decfucting 1/3rd of Rs.28,800/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.19,200/-. By multiplying the annualdependency of Rs.19,200/- with the multiplier of 15,' the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permlssible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,98,000/-<as compensation to the claimants. 6. Shri Roshan Verma, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- only. 7. True, the claimants pleaded that, their son, deceased Lakshman Ram used to earn Rs.130/- per day but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day; Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum on its own estimate. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the "assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 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 in that behalfcould have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and frSES-i others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 10. The multiplier of 15, selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporatlon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and anofher; reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased; the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R-N.Chandrakai- Judge subbu _^