1N THEH1GH COVR.TOFJVD10\TVR.EATBIlASPb[R,CCG.) Miscellaneous Appeal No. ^y> /20Q4.'*VSSi@{2 | APPELLANT5: CLAIMANT5 ^1) Bhgwgni Nit-mglk^i- S/o Sf-i Phgnsgi Age4 ghout - 4.2 ye^rs,_, 2) Smi Mgyajevi 5/o Bhgwgnt Ntrrngtkgf / Age4 sboui - 40 yegrs, Bo-tli gre Resi4en't ofSt^mh^eifiy^ Kl%hwtw, PoIio'Stg-tion - Kh^mgitai Pistt-Rgipui-CG.. RESPONPENTS NON-APPLICANTS ^- 1) ^.^ ^^' ^ .^^?\ ^ ^y^ ••" ^.•'' ^y • .•' .-• ^'s^ ^y^' ^*^ ^' ^ ^* VER5U5 Hemiqj S/Q Sri Pungu R^m Sghu Oecup^tiofl—Priver, R/o—Vilb^e Kinvgj Post- Damgkhejg, PoliceS-Egiion Simga, Pistt - Raipur C,G.. l-1cet3 bt Sahii S/o St-t fali Rgm Sshu R/o Vjllgge- Kinvai, Posf—Ogmgkhej? PoticeS^a'iipn - SJrng?, Djs-tt- Rgiput'C.G. T'he.Ofiw^ histWmce Cofofqny UtMieii Ttirougfc.Divisionsl Mgnaget, TheOrien'Uf Tngufqnce Compgny Umi'taij, Pivi5ion3l Office Nd. 2.:<.ti3wl.3 Complex, Sai: Ng^r fRev<so4t9 N^y } Rgipui- Tahsil & Pistt - Raipur C.G. ..\ , <•- MisceIIaneous Appeal undet-section 173 OF Motoi'VebicIesAd; 1988 i!Niil;!il! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH At BILASPUR Appellants/ Claimants Misc. Appeal No. 235 OF 2004 Bhawani Nirmalkar& Another Respondents/ Non-aDDliGants Versus Hemraj & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri SC Verma with Shri Aditya Khare, Advocates for appellants. None for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1" day of Februdry, 2010) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 13.11.2003, passed by the 4U' Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'Tribunal') in claimcase No. 163/02, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,37,6007- has been awarded in favour ofthe claimants and as against the insurance company/respondent No. 3 for the death of Prashant Nirmalkar. The brief facts of the case are that, on 05.08.2002, Prashant Nirmalkar (since deceased) met with an accident with Matador bearing'rigistration No. MP-23-D-0232 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants, the unfortunate parents of the deceased, by filing a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') against the Driver/Owner and Insurer of the ^lj^ilii-^j:^' Matador, claimed Rs. 6;18,000/- as compensation for death of deeeased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led bythe parties and the material available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 80/- per day i.e. Rs. 2400/- per month and Rs. 28,800/-per annum; deducted 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of deceased and thus assessed the lossof yeariy dependency at Rs. 21,600/- perannum; looking to the age of deceased at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 11 and thus awarded Rs. 2,37,6007- alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its recovery. 5. Learned eounsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side which deserves to be enhanced. 6. I have heard the counsel appearlng for the appellant and perused the order impugned and record also. 7. The. Tribunal has rightly assessed the incomeof the deceased at Rs. 2400/- per month which Is based on appreciatlon of evidence. However, as the claimants are parents of deceased therefore, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is slightly on higher side in view of judgmentofSupreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parentsofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. Therefore, it istruethat nothing has been awarded on other Heads, but looking to the fact that only 1/3 has been , ; .-deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and .^ ^ •^:',';• • :i^^:?i^^'s^li ^^^^MilSS SW^iimsttSWBSWillWSW»^ilSW&!^l^^^t^ »^ "'?*"%.. t!^SA "Sa '!Ifc- multiplier 11 hasbeen applied in place of 10, it cannot be said that the award passed by the Tribunal is on lower side. 8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Noorder asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agawal Judge ^ \K [F ^WU^»e«WB«^^^B ~"sw