: 1. Mandal Abhiyanta, Karyalay Mahaprabandhak, Doorsanchar Vibhag Bilaspur Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur ( C.G.) \ ( Owner). / A 2. The Manager, Telecom distt. Bilaspur, Through Pithaseen Adhikari Bilaspur. VERSUS : 1. Smt. ShivDevi Gupta ( Agrahari) y W/d Late Genda Lal Agrahari, Aged about 55 years (Claimant— 1). // Respondents 2. Roopendra Kumar Agrahari / S/o Late Shri Gendra Lal Agrahari, aged about 25 years ( claimant-2). Both resident of Dayalband Narial Kothi Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil and distt. Bilaspur( C.G) 3. Manoj Kumar Chouhan, S/o g Amarnath Chouhan resident of ' TarbahanRailWayColony Bilaspur Tahsil and distt. Bilaspur.(Driver) /{ Misc. Appeal u/s 173 bfM.V. Act, 1988. 1. Appeal by Appellant's owner 2. Respondent no. 1& 2 had been awarded by Rs. 2,‘7"s,800/ » I gV HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 269/2004 APPELLANTS Mandal Abhiyanta and another Versus (“r :A A RESPONDENTS Smt. Shiv Devi Gupta (Agrahari) and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT :— Shri Hemant Solapurkar appears on behalf of Shri R.M. Solapurkar, Adv. for the appellants. Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (3-9—2010) This is owner’s appeal against the award dated 6—11-2003 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims v Ttibunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 16/2001 awarding Rs. 2,78,800/- in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 as ‘compensation fOr the death of Jitendra Kumar Agrahari in the accident dated 31-12-2000 by the Jeep bearing Registration No. MP 26 F 4763 owned by the appellants. Facts of the case in brief are that on 31—12—2000at about 1.30 am deceased Jitendra Agrahari along with his friend Roshan Aajmani was going on foot from Rajendra Nagar to Dayalband. In front of Collector’s bungalow Jeep bearing registration No. MP-26—F—4763 being driven by respondent No. 3 rashly and negligently dashed Rajendra Agrahari, as a result of which he sustained grievons injuries and during treatment in hospital? he died. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MotoriVehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 1§,85,600/— as compensation for the death'of the deceased in the accident. i A -., V W “£39 3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submission made, evidence led and material placed on record, awarded Rs. 2,78,800/- in favour of the claimants and against the appellants and'respondent No. 3 holding the driver of the jeep responsible for the accident. Shri Solapurkar, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the respondent No. 1 i.e. the mother is the only dependent of the deceased and therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income toward personal expenses of the deceased. It should have been 50%. He would further contend that the multiplier of 12 applied by the Tribunal is also on higher side as the mother was of the age of 55 years at the time of accident. Reliance has been placed by Shri Solapurkar on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731 wherein the Supreme Court has held that ‘in case of death of unmarried son, multiplier cannot exceed 10. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would not dispute the above legal p I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. osition. l Learned Tribunal based on the evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dfiver of the Jeep, also rightly assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 33,600/-, which is based on evidence of the claimants as well‘as the employer of the deceased. Howe’ver, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1 /3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses as the respondent No. 2 being brother is not-Athe dependent of the deceased and only the mother is dependent. More over, since the mother is aged about 55 years and the deceased was unmarried, therefore, in View of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) multiplier of 12 applied by the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the multiplier of 10 would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I propose to recompute the compensation after deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier of 10 instead of 12. After deducting 50% of the yearly income of the deceased toward his personal expenses, the yearly dependency would be worked out to Rs. 16,800/-. By applying the multiplier of 10, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,68,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 10,000/- on other heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 1,78,000/— for which the claimants are entitled with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 29—1-2001 till its payment. ccordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Jitendra Agrahari in place of Rs. 2,78,800/—. The claimants are further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 29—1—2001 till its payment. The appellants and respondent 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount. The amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today. a No order as to costs. Sd/— N. K. Agarwal Judge A