SE .^ "3CSS^ i;i;."<k "t%. "1;;K3§B3», 1 '-. K.sis-wyf, "'t a^, nS^i ,„ '^./ ..-s'S-" IL1 ,J. ^- ,,,ill!f ;i»1:;!'t) 2. Ganesh Ram Murti, S/o Kisun Aged abouf 55 years, R/o Viliage Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Distt. i'vlahasamund. Fuibatia Bai, Vtf/o Ganesh Ram Murti, Aged abouf 50 years, R/o Viilage Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund. 1. Jagdev Slngh, S/'o Joginder Singh, Aged about 41 years, R;'o Baba iuddhaji Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil and Distt. Nagpur (M.S.) 2. Chhattar Sinah, S/o Bab Singh, Aoee about 38 years, Through : Orissa Frent Carrier, Head Office Biock No.A/5, Transport Nagar, Free Zone, Wardhan Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.) 3. The National insurance Co. Ltd. Division No. 11, Pa! Commercia! Compiex Anjani Chowk Wardha Road, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.) Through : Divisional Manager, The Nationa! insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Madina Building htechahari Chowk, Raipur SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES Shri Manoj Paranjpe & Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, !earned counsei for the appellants. ISt The following order, of Court was passed by '''s"~"<*^' ^-^-"^^ \^ i^.:/ •s' sffi w Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for deieting the name of appetlant No.1 Ganesh Ram Murti from the memo of appeal. 2} Appeiiant No.1 Ganesh Ram IVIurti is reported to have died during the pendency of the appeai on 30.08.2003. 3) !n this view of the matter, i.A. No.01/2008 is ailowed and name of appellant No.1 Ganesh Ram ^4urti be deieted from thememo ofappeal. 4) Learned counse! for the appetlants is heard on M.(C.)P s.755/2003, a petition Tor condonation of delay in filing the 5) On due consideration, M.(C.)P. No.755/2003 is allowed and the delay in fiting the appeal is hereby condoned. 6) Learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 7) Appellants had fiied this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.12.2002, passed in Claim Case No.29/2001. 8) As against the compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- claimed by the unfortunate parents of deceased Raju Murti by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for his death in the motor accident on 16.05.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensatibn along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual pavment. aljjife • .T-^' .<• .3 iBP' 9) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the iower multiplier of 10 and in awarding lovi/ compensation or Rs.2,42,000/- oniy. 10) The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Raju Murti used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Driver. The Tribunal accepting the ciaimants' evidence led in that behalf, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per mor.th. The appellants/ciaimants, therefore, cannot have anv grievance so far as the assessment of the income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal is concemed. 11} The Tribunal has been qulte libera! in deducting Qniy 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses while assessing the claimants' dependency Shough a sum to the extent of 2/3rs' of the iRCcme of the deceased could have been deducted towards hls personal expenses, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat tavindra and others, reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), as the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident and afte! lis mamaae his contribution towards the parents wouid have 'en substantialiy recsuced. 12) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunai cannot be found fauit with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer in it was held that in those cases where'the claimants are parents of the deceased, the muitiDlier should never exceed 10. r '%, ,;»|>»^3 g: ct: 31llli 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the multiplier selected. 14) The appeal filed by the appe'lants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu ..iff