^4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJON BENCH CORAEVI; HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUiVIAR SINHA, J. M.A.CC) No.1259of2008 APPELLANTS Clalmants ?• [ <€ 1. Goutamchand Jaln S/o Vastima! Jain, aged about 45 yrs., 2. Smt. Sharmila Jain, W/o Goutam Chand Jain, aged about 43 yrs., 3. Dilip Kumar Jain S/o Goutam Chand Jain, aged about 20 yrs., 4. Gaurav Jain S/o Goutam Chand Jain; agedabout18yrs., 5. Nikhi! Jain S/o Goutam Chand Jain, aged about 13 yrs., (Minor) through his father Goutam Chand Jain S/o Vastima! Jain, Al! are R/o village Parsada, Tahsll Gundardehi, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIIVSANTS Pawan Kumar Sahu S/o Jeevan Lai Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Beiodee, Post Gundardehi, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver and owner of vehicle Hero Honda CD Deiuxe Bearing No.CG 07 LG/3526) The Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Maiviya Nagar, Tahsll and DistrictDurg(C.G.) Bajaj Aliianz General tnsurance Company Ltd., through its Divisionai Manager, DivisEon Office Pand^ri Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Vehide Hero Honda CD Deluxe Bearing No. CG 07 LG/3526) NisceElaneous Appea! U/S 173 ofthe EVEotor VehicEes Act. 1988 Present: Shri Prashant Gupta,|earned counsel forthe appeliants. ORDER ?th (17tn September, 20Q8) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gypta, C.J. Shri Prashant Gupta, learned counsei for the appeilants is heard on admission. 2. The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, (F.T.C.) Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 25-07-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 31/2007. 3. A tota! sum of Rs.19,00,000/- was c!aimed as compensation by the parents and brothers of deceased Dharmendra Jain by fiiing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehjcles Act. Deceased Dharmendra Jain died on account of the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accjdent on 19-06-2007 when Hero Honda IVlotorcycie bearing registration No.CG 07 LG 0449 on whlch he was traveiiing was dashed by the other Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 07/ ^; LG-3526, resulting in muttiple serious injuries to deceased Dharmendra Jaln, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Dharmendra Jain though himself wasa student of Chartered Accountancy used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from tuition. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied by the parties held that deceased Dharmendra Jain died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19-06-2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Hero Honda Motorcycie bearing registration No.CG 07/LG 3526; as the offending Motorcycie on the date of the accident was insured with Bajaj Aliianz Genera! insurance Company Limited, the tnsurance Company was llable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. TheTribuna! assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards the personai expenses, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out IQ Rs.3,12,000/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,19,000/- as compensationjto the claimants along with ^ 4 L interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 6. Shri Prashant Gupta, learned counsef for the appefiants vehemently argued that the Tribunat has erred in not accepting the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum oniy; in seJecting the lower multiplierof 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,19.000/- only. 7. Though the daimants pleaded that deceased Dharmendra Jain used to earn Rs.10,000/-per month from tuition, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinchJng nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8. The claimants' dependency atso has been rightly assessed by the Tribuna! by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 9. The muEtipIier of 13 selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVIurElCEpal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman jyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC - 731, wherein it was held that In those cases, where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier shouid never exceed 10. 10.. For the foreoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! s k- r either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the daimants' dependency by the Tribunai or the multiplier selected. 11. The appeai, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge