^ OF AT CJ. J. 1. Blsesar Sao, S/o Late Shri Ramswarup Sao, about 45 years, 2. Smt. Chintadevj, W/o Shri Bisesar Sao, aged about 42 years, 3. Meera Kumari, D/o Shrl Blsesar Sao, aged about 15 years, 4. Bebl Kumari, D/o Shri Bisesar Sao, aged about 13 years, 5. Dhirendra Kumar, S/o Shrl Bisesar Sao, aged about 1 1 years, 6. Pooja Kumari, D/o Shri Bisesar Sao, about 9 years, Appeliant no.3 to 6 are SVlinor, Through their Legal Guardian Shri Sao - Appellant No.1. A13 Resident of A.C.C. Chowk, Nandini Road, Bhilai, Police Station Jamu!, Tahsii & Dlstt. Durg (C.G.) 1. Laxminarayan @ Ravi S/o Nemuram @ Heva Gupta, aged about 32 years, R/o Jalgaon, Poiice Statlon Darri, District Korba, presentiy address Sai Baba, VVorkshop, Ambikapur (C.G.) ^ Vijay Kumar Ingole & Sans, S/o Achhumaram lngo!e, R/o D.C. Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) United india insurance Com. Ltd. Through : Divssiona! Manager, Thakkar Compiex Power House Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) U/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Shri Jltendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appeliants. ORDER (24tn March, The following order of the Court was by Gypta, C.J. Shri Jjtendra Gupta, learned counsei for the appeliants is heard on I.A. No.01 (an application for condonation of delay in fsSlng the appeal). 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing the sufficient cause for the deiay jn filing the appeai. 3. Therefore, I.A. No.01 js aiiowed and the deiay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5. The Tribunai's record perused. 6. Appei!ants -" cEaimants are seeklng enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Ninth Additlonal Motor Accidents s^*^T^. .T CEaims Tribunal, (F.T.C-), Durg, (for short "The Tribunal), vlde award dated 20-09-2007, passed in Clalm Case No.51/2007. 7. The cSairnants, unfortunate parents, sisters and brother of deceased Dharmendra @ Karu, ciaimed compensation of Rs.53,75,000/- for hls death in the motor accident on 01-07-2006, when Tata Sumo bearing Reglstration No. CG-07-4935 in which he was traveiiing was dashed by the offendlng vehicie bus bearing Registration No.CG-15-A/1550, resuiting in death of as m.any as four occupants of the Tata Sumo includlng deceased Dharmendra @ Karu. The claimants further pieaded that deceased Dharmendra @ Karu who was aged about 22 years used to earn Rs.400/- per day by running a Fiour MJ!I. 8. The Tnbunal on the evidence ied by the parties held that DEiarmendra @ Karu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-07-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving of the drlver of the offending vehicie bus; as the offendlng vehide bus on the of the accident vi/as insured with United india Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was IIable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 9. The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the evidencs Jed by the ciaimants about the income of the 'deceased his incoms at Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/-. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of n^^ Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12.000/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.24.500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,36,500/- as compensation to the ctalmants along wlth the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petltlon tl!E the date of actual payment. 10. Shri Jitendra Gupta, Eearned counsei for the appei!ants vehement!y argued that the Trsbuna! has erred in not accepting the c'aimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in hls Income at Rs.3,000/- only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,36,500/- only to the claimants. 11. Though the ciaimants pieaded that deceased Dharmendra Karu used to run a flour mili, no documentary evidence, such as permission/iicence granted by the Locai Authorities to run a flour mii! was produced before the Tribunal. !n this of evldence, we do not flnd any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunai in dlscarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 12. The mu!tiplier of 13 selected by the Tribuna! is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case o[Misnicipai CQi-poration ofGreater Vs» iyer anothQ!-, reported In (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held s^ ^-^-^ 1 r'1ii%^ 2 '^'// '"^fe subbu that in those csses where the clsimants are the parents of the deceased, the muEtipiier shouid never exceed 10. 13. Thus, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation of Rs.3,36,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeai, therefore, faiis and is hereby dlsmissed summariSy. | Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge