r§§§iT ESGQR? {3 $§$$§§THSGAR¥ iia E§L£$?§j§:i E§¥§$¥$N §§$§X§S$ E‘iGRFgLE $ R§ {ii-h UfEhI? l E §LIBI DA ifihih navw Ls. an Enn Km: KOWH‘E:La u nuPAlrx§5wl§a v: i$ivuMaAn¢ E gcG) Resmndems The Qrienta! insurance Comgany Bci, A»:ai'kh A 0mm: £€:aa -— r». uumxuui’uhi wmag r». uumfmx -U TF’ Naaar. Koma (CG) Maniram Satnami Agea a32 years. $z’o Shri Puai Ram Samam D11. mu \iiil wage Amaidi’na PS EEaigarh, Sistt Raipur \CG; I \ am Prasad Satnami aged 29 years: ' ' ‘ Res“, aatnam% Rl’e Wiage ”maidiha PS Biiagarh Eistt Raipur i I Miecegianeeus Angeai under Seciioa 1% cf “94;.” mvun q h Egan“; 5.15555 a€§ n Shri YC Sharma am Shri \jivekrRamore. sounee! fer th“ "M‘4§ams ' Fresen : i C ayycl Smt Chitra Shrivasiava, counsei for respcmdent No.1 8hr§ Sh§vendu Pandya, ceunse§ f0? reependerg’ze N02 ane 3 GREEQ £35“ Siee’éemeeg EQQ} } iz WE§se AwegE Nb. ’EM {if Emmi Aweééamg Neek. D&s, aged 4E3 yearg, Sig 3hri mqémants I‘L“ , Kaymu Das,Aa§g&ney II V‘ Eaéan Ba§ aged 42 W/o Shri aged years, MAaA \wcu 3.”. a:,ngjgan€:‘y’ Rn'§,u Eath Rig Vinagg — Amamma, PS Din-again, L‘J'lah-u-u-JA Ta’n ldu DHe—d’u Dnmgai'u, 1-. r":nél- umu D r\&i§'J‘EJ§' The faliowing erder of the Cour? was passed by R§Eaav Gama. CJK E This is ‘Cia3mants anpea§ far enhancement of the cemeensation awarded bv the Firs? Additionai Motor Accédem Claims Tribunai. Baloda Bazar. Rainur (for shaft ‘ihe Tribunai‘) vieie award dateci 291 1 2(103‘ massed in Ciaim Case No.48/2QG3. 2) As agains’t the compensaiian of Rs.7,8G,GG$/- claimed by the u ., apeeiiantsl cia§mants unfertunate pa¥ents cf deceased Viyeadra Kumar bv fiima a ciaim petitmn unde¥ Section 166 of "ihe Memr a Vehioies Act- fcr his death :n the motor accioen’i on 18.01 2?.)(33: ’{he Tribunai awarded a tota1 sum of Rs.1,80,20€)!— as compensation along wiih interest @ ‘ % pe1 annum from the date of the féEing sf the c§aim oetition 1111 the date of aotuat oayment. 3} $hr§ YC Sharma anct Shri Vivek Rathore, teameo? couosetfor the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribune} has erred in not acceetiho the ciaiments’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in aesessing his income at ReBGI- per day and Rs.1 299,!- oer month assumind that the deceased was getting work e onlv for 2C) days in a month; and in awarding iow compensation of R31 .8i3.2i)D/- oniv. 4') Smt Chitra Shrivastava. teamed counsei for reepondeht No1 on the other hand supported the award and contended that ht comoensation of Rs“; ,80,2GO‘/— awarded by the “t“‘ribunai is iust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present ease. ‘ i b) Shr Shivendu Pandya, ieamed counsei for respondents No.2 and 3 aiso suppcrted the award. 8) Tfue the Ciaimams pieacéed that their son \lkenma Kumaf used to earn RsjGl- per day as labour: the evidence §ed in thai _ behalf was not of ciinching nature. Cohsidering that deceased Virendra Kumar was aged about 2D years onty, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the iacome of the deceased by the V- Tribunal. ‘3} The Thbunai has been quite Eberat in deducting only 1.13m st the income‘of the deceased towards his petsonat expenses though the deduetien in that behatf coutd have been te the extent ct” §O% of the ihcome of the deceased in View of the recent dictum ct the Apex Cetttt in the case ct” Siyett Eesheet ethamett amt sitters Vs Mchammect Jameet and ansther reported m 12%;?) 2 Suereme $eert Sages L225. 8) The muitipiier 0t t? setected by the Tribunal is atse on the higher side considering that the oiairnants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum ct the Apex Court 3n the case of tvtttntetpat Corgeratton ot‘ Greater gammy Vs Laxrrtan Eyer end artother, reported tn t2€§§3t 3 SC€;-T3‘t, wheretn it was heid that En those eases where the ctatmants are parents of the deceased, the muitipiter should never exceed 1C}. Q) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope tor enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai either on account of the assessment of the income ot' the deceased, or ‘ . the ciaimants‘ dependency by the Ti’ibunai. 0r The muitialjer selecteé. e w§ The apnea‘a fiied bv the anee£anisic§aiman€s for enhancement o? the compensatien, therefore, is Eame t0 be dlsmiseed and is herebv dismissed. 11;} Ne order as ta costs. 7 Sdl- » 5 Chief Justice