IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. m NO. ^\ /2008 fS.B.) Cl .^-^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS .^>e^ ^•>^5-- .•••"'..^\ •••v. A.-"" .^'"."^ '^ c.\^i , /_ t^6 ^s^^^ VERSUS Sushil Kumar, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Vishwakarma, aged about SOyears. Occupation labourer. Than Bai, W/o Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 45 years, Caste -Lohar, Both are R/o Village Bhakhara, Tehsil - Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENT 7" - Yashwant Kumar S/o Yuvraj Singh Sahu, aged about 37 years R/o Village Doma, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner/Driver) APPEAL UNDER SECTION f73 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD DATED 15.04.2008 r ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA.(C) No. 771 of 2008 APPELLANTS Sushil Kumar & another Claimants VERSUS RESPONDENT : Yashwant Kumar (MtSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) DB: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Present : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate for the appellants. Shri PP Sahu with Shri Aditya Kumar, Advocates for respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 23.11.2011) Per: N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in the award dated 15.04.2008, passed by the Addl. Motor Accident CJaims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribuna!') in daim case No. 28/07. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 20,00,0007- clairned by unfortunate parents of deceased Lokesh Kumar by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), for his death in the motor accident on 03.06.2007; the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,60.500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. Th6 Jribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ^^s^^^ .^ .^.. ^^.. Tractor and Trolley bearing registration No. CG-05-5474 & CG- 04-ZG-5475 by its driver/respondent; Lokesh Kumar died on account of injuries sustained in the said accident; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of appellants/claimants. Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants wou!d submit: the Tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3rd of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and thereby in awarding low amount of compensation which deserves to be suitably enhanced. On the other hand, Shri PP Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the award impugned and submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation which does not call for any interirerence. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of Tribunal including award impugned. The tribunal, taking in to consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36.000/- per annum, deducted 2/3rd of it towards persona! expenses of the deceased and assessed the claimants' annual dependency at Rs. 12,000/-, applied multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs. 1,56,000/- as compensation to theclaimants on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 4500/- on other heads and thus v^ ^ awarded a totalsum of Rs. 1,60,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 8. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum, but has certainly erred in deducting 2/3rd of it towards his personal expenses in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by deducting 50 percent of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses. 9. After deducting 50 percent of Rs. 36,000/- towards personal expenses of deceased, the claimants' annual dependency is assessed at Rs. 18,000/-. Since the claimants are parents and deceased was unmarried son at the time of accident, therefore, appropriate multiplier would be 10 in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Another2, wherein it has been held that in case where the claimants are parents, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10. By multiplying claimants' annual dependency i.e. Rs. 18,000/- with the multjpiier of 10, the appeilants would become entitie for Rs. 1,80,000/~ towards loss of dependency. The appellants are further entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- each towards loss of estate & funeral expenses). Thus, the appeilants 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 2 2003 (8) SCC 731 are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,90.000/- as compensation in place of Rs. 1,60,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,60,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 29.500/- over and above the amount of Rs. 1,60.500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The above enhanced amount of compensatjon of Rs. 29,500/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 12. The respondent is granted three months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 29,500/- along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge