^-_^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR !L! Misc.Appeal (0 No. 283 of21 Claimants 1. Vasimuddin, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Shamimuddin 2. 3. 4. 2. 3. Nishad Begum, aged about 37 years, W/o Vasimuddin Shabina, aged about|'!7 years, D/o Vasimuddin i Sarfaraz, aged about 12 years, Applicant No. 3 and 4 are minors through natural guardian father Vasimuddinthe applicantNo. 1 All residents of Farid Nagar, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) Balram Pal aged about 32 years S/o Shri Laxman Pal, R/o Village Simga Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Driver of Minibus No. CG04 ZA0787 Abdul Shafik, S/o Shri Abdul Qafyr, R/o. Maudhapara, Raipur The .Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through .. Divjsional Manager, DJviSiorial Office No. 1,. Madlna Suilding, Uail Road Raipur (C.G.) Misc. Ap^eal yn^er Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta^ counsel for respondent No.3. .rd (23ra February, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 12 Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated i.07.2006, passea' in Claim Case No.83/2006. 2) As against the eompensation of Rs.12,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, sister and brother of deceased Aftab Khan, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death iri the motor accident on Q3.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,23,000/- as cQmpensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date offiling ofthe ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Smt. Hamida Siddique, learnedcounsel fortheappellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence abouf the income of the-deceased^nd in assessing his income. at Rs.3,000/- per month only; and in awarding lowcompensation of Rs,4,23,000/- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No,3 the Orientai Insurance company on the other hand sabmitted that the Tribuna! has erredin deducting only 1/3''d of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; inselecting the higher multiplierof 17; and in awardingexcessive compensation of Rs.4,23,000/-. -^L il-'i. 5). True, the claimants pleaded that deceas'ed Aftab Khan used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as Conductor-cum- checker in the Minibus, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The employer of the deceased was not examined before the Tribunal to establish his employment and the income to the extent of Rs.4,500/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per mont'n. . ' 6) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting oniy 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of50% of the income of .the deceased as he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme 7) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering the fact that the claimants.are parents, sister and brother 6f the deceased and in view of the dictym of the Apex Court in the case oiMunicipal Corporation ofGreater Bomfiay Vs. Laxman lyer and anofher, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the y^-—w^. e ^^l^^^fc^^^. ^5^15'^ft ^i i!li! ». I f ^3S^^ ''"^•:17L\;^-1T7^.T:^^ subbu ctaimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 8) For the foregolng 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 orthe multiplier selected. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. , 10) No orderas to costs, —, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnatti Chaadrakar Judge