'y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS M.A. (C) PR No. 1565 OF 2007 r^Ac.__??^/^ . 1. Mohanlal Patel S/o Chandra Ram Pate!, aged about 50 years 2. Smt. Kunti Patel W/o Mohanlal Patel, aged about 44 years 3. Laxmikant Patel S/o Mohanlal Patel, aged about 21 years 4. Ku. Vasundra Patel, D/o Mohanlal Patel, aged about 19 years 5. Ku. Pushplata Patel, D/o Mohanla! Pate!, aged about 17 years. All R/o- Village ~ Lamkeni, Police Station- Baghbahara, & Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus ^!'\ RESPONDENT Non<:lajmants Santosh Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Udayram Nirmalkar, R/o - Vitlage Achhola, Police Station - Tumgaon, Tehsil & Djstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicte Truck bearing registration No. C.G.06/4357) Narendra Singh Gurudutta, S/o Ranjeet Singh Gurudutta, R/o - Station Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Registered owner of Vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.06/4357) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited through DMsionaJ Manager, Divisional Office, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Market, Raipur, Tehsii & District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Vehicle Truck bearing registratlon No. C.G.06/4357) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (04th March, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta. C.J.: Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the application for condonationof delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfled that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 21.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.108/2006. s^ ^) f- 6. The claimants, unfortunate parents,brother and sisters of deceased Ashwani Patel, claimed compensation of Rs.57,72,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.11.2005. 7. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led before it heid that dec^ased Ashwani Patel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.11.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New tndia Insurance Company Limited, Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.6,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clajmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.36,000/- with the mujtiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.27,000/- under the other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,67,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petltion tillthe date of actual payment. <f^ 9. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants 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.6,000/- per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,67,000/- only. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ashwani Patel used to earn Rs.15,000 - 20.000/- per month by his practice as B.A.M.S. Doctor, but no reliable and dinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. The Tribunal, therefore, was left with no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 11. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravindra and others, reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C.-208 (SC), wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased and the deceased is unmarried, the deduction for persona! expenses could be to the extent of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. 12. The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view ofthe dictum oftheApex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it has held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased themultiplier, shouid never exceed 10. 13. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat e'rther on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal orthe multiplier selected. 14. The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. DU Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge