HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 2004 Appeilants 1 Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Sri Ganga Ram Claimants Yadav, aged about 46 years, occupation House wife. 2 Ganga Ram Yadav S/o Sri Khedan Ram Yadav, aged about 50 years, Both are residence of behind Gurudwara, Station Para, Ward No. 15, Abhanpur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur C.G. versus Resnondents Non-appiicants 1. Dilip Lahare 8/0 Sri Samaru Lahare, aged about 24 years, Rlo Kodar-para, Tahan Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ,Charan}eet Singh S/o Sri Jagjeet Singh Gandhi, aged about 9 years, R/o Bus Stand, Abhanpur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The United india insurance Company Limited, Divisional Oftice Kachahari Chowk, Jan Road, Raipur (C.G.) Misceiianeous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Shri A.L. Singraul, ~ learned counsel ‘for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. c Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned ounsel 'for respondent No.3. Present : a 0 R D E R (6m September, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Parmeshwar' Yadav are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additiohal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, RaipUr (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 15.1 1 .2963, passed in Claim Case No. 23 of 2003. ' 2) As against the compensation of Rs.18,25,000/— claimed by the appellants! claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Parmeshwar Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30.10.2002, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1 ,64,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri A.L. Singraui, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- only though the appellants’ son deceased Parmeshwar Yadav would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. 4) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 — United lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,64,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and Circumstances of the present case. 5) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/— per annum which we have taken on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the year 2002, in other cases: the ciaimants’ dependency would not be more than Rs.15,000/- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personai expenses in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 supreme Court Cases 225; as the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal ¢orporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heid that tn those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,0001- with the muitiplier of 10; the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,50,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/— for toss of estate, the claimants become entitied to receive a totai sum of Rs.1,60,000/— as compensation for the death of .their son Parmeshwar Yadav in the motor accident, which is less than the amount of Rs.1 ,64,0()0/— awarded by the Tribunal. ‘ 6) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of l J assessment‘of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 7) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8) No order as to costs. \\ Sd_/- " KN. Chandrakar Judge x ,, x subbu ;