vis, wR . Resgondents ‘ ‘l. lshwar Ki‘mfar Sahu, son of Jagdish Non-claimants Sahu, resident of village Loharsi, Tah. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Bachan Das Manikpuri, son of Sukrit Manikpuri, resident of Son Loharsi, Pachpedi (Masturi), Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office Bilaspur (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (215‘ January, 201 1) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH CCRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 183 ofzoo5 ‘ AQQeilants 1. Smt‘. Basanti Bai wife of Leelaram C%a§mants Yadav, aged about 35 years, reHgion Hindu, occupation House wife. 2. Leela Ram Yadav son of Aasharam ’ Yadav, aged about 40 years, religion Hindu, occupation Agriculture labour. Both resident of village Loharsi son Tah. Masturi, distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 0t of the Court was passed by The foNowing order Ra}eev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Dinesh Yadav are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for shdrt ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.1 1 .2004, passed in Claim Case No.96/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,60,000l— claimed by the appellantsl claimants; unfortunate parents of deceased Dinesh Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10.04.2000, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,56,000!— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of‘filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,56,000l— only, though the deceased would have extended great support to the claimants in their old age. 4) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3- the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,56,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and citcumstances of the present case. Wes/s/WW/CW \i \ l \ \ 5) in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,56,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal as they themselves pleaded and proved that their son Dinesh Yadav used to earn Rs.80/- per day as labour and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80l- per day and Rs.2,000/— per 'month assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 20 days in a month. i , 8) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased .by the Tribunal at Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,000/- per month. 9) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expensesgt is perfectly inline with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammad Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. axe/W rxw .l \ l l T. ,/’ , wwwwmg (a v MWNE$ - \ W44 10) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribune! is rather on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents Of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, reported in (2G03) 8 $CC-731, wherein it was held 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 either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or .the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier seiected. \i’r‘t '12) The appeal filed by the appellants! ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation;‘Vktherefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ‘ ex 13) W, r t 5d,. ChierJustice / ”71 Sdll~ ‘1 g Sunii Kumar Sinha JudgegWsVL‘Ifggi y