\/°*-\ IUI SLi Kamta Banjare, S/'o Negi Ram Banjare, Aged about 39 years Chameli Bai W/o Kamta ianjare, Aged about 36 years 5oth are resident of Village Kodwa, Post Office Sasha, Police Station & Tahsil Palari, District Ralpur (C.G.) Ram Kumar Pathare S/o Kondaram Pathare, Aged sbout 20 years R/o Village Kodwa, Police Station & TahsiS Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) Anand Ram Banjare S/o Pyare Lal Banjare, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Patharchawa, Post Mohara, Police Station Palari, Distnct Raipur (C.G.) The ^Qriental Insurance Company Kach ari Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. •th The following order of the Court was passed by !•' 1 """ ^ S ^•aisasgis^'"' Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an appiication for condonation of delay 2. On due consideration of the submissions of ieamed counsel for the appeliants, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in shov»'ing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the deiay in filins the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 5. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additiona! IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, vide award dated 29-02-2008, passed in Claim Case No.203/2006. 6. The ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Toman Sanjare, claimed compensation of Rs.18,06,000/- by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his deafh in the motor accident on 02.06.2006, when the cycte on which he was traveiling gs a pillion-rider was dasiied by the offending vehicle Mahendra Tractor, bearing registration No.CG.04ZG-8791, resulting in his Instantaneous death on the spot itselr. The cfaimants further pleaded that their son Toman Banjare was aged about 18 years; student of 10 standard; used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by tuition and serv'ing in a Medica! Store. .^ffti ^l 7. ^">, /". The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of She evidence !ed by the ies before it held that the claimants' son Toman Banjare died account of the injuries sustsined by him in the motor accident on •06-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent the driver of the Qffendina vehicle Tractor: thouah the offending vehicie Tractor on the date of accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, as the same on the date of the accident was being ptied in breach of the policy condition, the insurance Company was not liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. The Tribunal considering that deceased Toman Banjare was aged about 16-17 years and student of 10 standard, assessed his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. 5y muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000./-. 3y awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the funeral expenses and !oss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Toman Banjare in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 7% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petitio.n till the date of actuai payment. Though the Tribunai exonerated the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor from its iiabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants on account of .^•^X.&K-Sf,"t~5^ ^•^ "~^ ^w^, '^ the breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was directed to ffrst pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicie Tractor. 9. Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsei for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing his income at Rs.15.000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- only. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that their son Toman Banjare used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by tuition and working at a IVIedica! Store, but considering that the deceased was aged about 16-17 years only and student of 10 standard, it is dffficult to believe that he could have earned at all by tuition and working at a Medical Store. In thss state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the c'aimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Toman Banjare was aged about 16-17 years only. 11. The Tribunal has been qulte liberal in deducting oniy 1/3 of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 12. The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribuna! is rather on the higher side in view of the djctum of the Apex Court in the case of ther, reported in (2003) 8 SCC - 731, wherein it was held that '^^' ^ :*3-s;y?S^''' in those cases where the ctaimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier shouid never exceed 10. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency assessed by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal, therefore, is liable to he dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunij Kumar Sinha Sfe Subbu