ss^ i^3^ i Ut- W ;lal?riant; M.A. tC} No. 7 of 20K 1 Gopal Kumar Paikra Son of Late Kadosay, aged about 47 years, Occupation Servlce; 2 Smt Saniyaro Paikra, Wife of Gopai Kumar Paikra, aged about 42 years, Occupation Housewife; Soth are residents of Vstlage Barnba, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur, presentiy residing at Police Line, Bairampur, District Surguja (CG) Suk'nen Ram Son Nindu Ram, aoed about. 27 years, Gaste Agariya, Occupation Driver, Resident of Village Karkali, Police Statlon and Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja (CG) Rajkishore Gupta Son of Jaiprakash Narayan Gupta, aged about 20 years, Occupation Vehlcle O'wner, Resident of High School Road Kusmi, Poiice •Station and Tahsil Kusml, District Surguja (CG) Branc'n Manager, United Sndia Insurance Company Limlted, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, Police Station and "ahsii Ambikapur, District Surguja /i^/~^^ V"*-',' •esent: S'nri V.K. Pandey and Shri T.R. Chandrakar, counse! fortheappeliants. .^ F ^ss^sssa '^.. ^^ cS) The followins ^? f^isan^s n J ^?-1^1 ^?^*'?'Sh Ewtneanaf—» •^S^ii^<f%X |u/"" jsnuary, zuiu) order of the Court was passed by ?hri V.K.. Pandey and Shri T.R. Chandrakar, counsel for the aDpeliants are heard on admission. "'l ; Tribs vide w ^. the Sur. ni' The appeilants are<. seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Cisims >una!, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunai') award dated 25.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.33/2008. As against the compensation of Rs.15,32,000/- ciaimed by. appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased yajeet @ Ganga, by filing a claim petition under Section 16i ie Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded'a total sum of Rs.2,94,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition ti!! the date of actua! payment. 4) Learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that -tfee Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- on!y. 5) . . The ciairnants themseivss pleaded that their son Suryajeet @ Ganga used to earn Rs'4,000/- per month from tuition. It was further submitted that ou{ of his income, he used to spent Rs.2,000/- on himseif and vvas contributing the remainine Rs.2,000/'- to the parents. ^ < 6) As the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and the claimants' dependency also has been assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, the appeilanV claimants cannot have any tegitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal. 7) The multiplier of 11<-selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Miinicipal CorporaGon of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the olaimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multipijer should never exceed 10. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of compensation, therefore, is liable to be ^ismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge s- '^' ^~» • £• .^ .V t