\h HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Appellants Claimants 5 6 M.A.(C)N6.119of 2010 1 2 Resham Bai, W/o Govardhan Diwakar, aged about 38 years. Govardhan Diwakar, S/o Late Khedadas Diwakar, aged about 41 years. Ku. Laxmin Diwakar, D/o Govardhan Diwakar, aged 18 years, Ku. Aasha Diwakar, D/o Govardhan Diwakar, aged about 17 years Aakash Diwakar, S/o Govardhan Diwakar, aged about 15 years. Nitu Diwakar, D/o Govardhan Diwakar, agedabout18years. Appellant No.4 to 5 are minor through his guardian mother Resham Bai, W/o Govardhan Diwakar. Smt. Katika Bai, W/o Late Khedadas Diwakar, aged about 70 years, Ali R/o Ward No.4, Pathariya, P.S. Pathariya, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents Non-appellants Alakhdev Kunwar, S/o Rameshwar Kunwar, aged about 35 years, R/o Balau, Thana Mahrajganj, Distt. Siwan (Bihar) Present R/o Tulsinagar, Thana Rampur, Distt. Korba (C.G). Driver. Karnajl Singh Bhatiya, S/o Manjeet Singh Bhatiya, aged about 35 years, R/o MIG-74, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba (C.G.). Owner. ? "^^>^^- 3 Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Umited, Branch Office - Rama Triad Center, first flour, In front of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Insurance Company Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Sameer Singh, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (03rd February, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation aw^rded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.10.2009, passed jn Claim Case No.23/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.9,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, sisters, brother and grandmother of deceased Raju Diwakar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 6.03.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,86,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting FW1 ^ the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards h,is personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- only. 5) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum as pieaded by the claimants, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.30,000/- per annumas deceased Raju Diwakar, on the date of the accident, was unmamed and 50% of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal expenses, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225; as multiplier in the present case cannot be more than 10, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court jn the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; the compensation at the most would be Rs.3,00,000/-, by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000/- with the multiplier of 10; by awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants would become entitted to receive a total sum of Rs.3,10,000/-, which ts less than the sum of Rs.3,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. r ,a,w^4-"u,t-y<;^A;irt^W^^(2^a^rit^WAa fi»&, ^ '^^yH^ i ^ J 6) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge subbu