E HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRJ RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. AppelEants ^ Non-aDDllcants Misc. Appeal (C) No.1464/2009 1 Mohammad Yasin Meman, S/o Hajl Abdul Ajij Meman, aged about 43 years 2 Smt Nassm Meman, W/o Mohammad Yasin Meman, aged about 40 years 3 Smt Hajiyani Aman Begum Meman, W/o Haji Abdui Ajij Meman, aged about 70 years Ail r/o Ward No.19 Manendragarh, Poii'ce Station and Tahsl? Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG) VERSUS 1 ShahSd Khan, S/o iate Najri Khan, aged about 42 years, Driver, R/o Dharola Mohalla, Budhar Road, Shahdol (MP) 2 Mahesh Kumar Singh, S/o late Ramnath Singh, aged about 60 years, Owner Prayag Travels, Development Area Shahdo! (MP) 3 Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Budhar Road Shahdol, District Shahdol (MP) 4 Chief Generai Manager, SECL Hasdev Area Post South Jhagrakhan, Tahsii Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG) IVIIsc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri SP Sahu, counsel forthe appeliants. ^ ORDER »th ^8m December, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 2) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 29.06.2009, passed in Claim Case No.30/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.76,53,300/- claimed by the appeliants / ciaimants, unfortunate parents and grandmother of deceased Yayaha Memon by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actuat payment. 4) Learned counsel for the appeilants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.39,000/- per annum; in selecting lower multipiier of 10; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- only. 5) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Yayaha Memon used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month from battery and radlator repair shop, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact, it has come In the evidence of AW/1 Md Yasin, father of the deceased that the shop in question was registered in his name. In r:"^ this state of evidence, we do not fihd any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 6) The Tribunal has been quite libera! in deducting only 1/3rd of Rs.39,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 7) The multipjier of 10 selected by the Tribunai too cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVJunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier shouid never exceed 10. 8) For the foregoina reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multipller selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants / ciajmants for enhancement of the compensatjon, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge