.r;-S;'sm%6> •a w ^. 'ls^y /'ffsczasi" y "v'\'y- .sffS fnitSSS^tsS!S^ A.. ^ • K ^A^ lC,'^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSSON BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SKRI SUNIL KUK'iAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS/ Clalmants M.A.(C) PR No. 3007 of 2008 1. Tiharu Ram S/o Late Baratu Ram Kswat, aged about 48 years, 2. Smt. Mangali Bai W/o Tiharu Ram Kewat, aged about 4Q years, Both are resident of vitlage Singhu!, Seorinarayan, Na'/agarh, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At present R/o-B'nadarapara, Baico Nagar, Distt. Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS DEFENDANT N0.1 OWNER VERSUS 1. Gupteshwar Nishad; aged about 23 years, son of SaSrughan, resident of Kokdi, P.S. Utai, Distt. Ourg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sunlta Mishra; W/o Ganesh Mishra, R/o Forest Colony, Kanshabel, distt. - Jashpur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company, Through Office-Branch Manager, Gitanjali, Bhawan, Korbe (C.G.) MlscelSaneous Appeal U/s 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1983 Present: Shri Rudranath MuKheqee, learned counsel of the appeilants. ORDER ith (11'"December,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counse! for the appellants is heard on i.A. No. 01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. <,- 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeilants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fillne ).1/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filinc herebycondoned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of ths compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Korba (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 14.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No.180/2007. As against the compensation of Rs.3,73,20,000/- ciaimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Chhatram Kewat, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition. 7. Shri Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- oniy. 8. The claimants pleaded that their son Chhatram Kewat, who was aged about 19 years used to earn Rs.7,500/- as Carpenter. The Tribunai considering that the deceased was pursuing his occupation as Carpenter in a small village in the District of Korba, assessed his income at Rs.3, per month. On due •:i''-:';':-.'.'t.^^">.s.;i ' m •l^.' llilSl ) I ...'ts^^^ ^yvf consideration, we are satisfied that the income of the deceaseci has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 9. The Tribunal has been quite liberat in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though in view of the dictum of the Apex in the case of Donat hi< SOOO (1) T.A.C. -208 (SC), the deduction could have been to the extent of 2/3 of the jncome of the deceased as the deceased is unmarried and after his mamage his contribution towards the parents would have been substantially reduced. The multiptier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the ter side, In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ilCE another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appea! fited by the appellants for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore; is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _—'--f 'T-- ~ - Sd/- • Chief Jusrice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r r :»aa RS ^"^