, l11*—^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUSVIAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 283 of 2008 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Smt. Begum B. Parityakta Shri Baharkhan, aged about 45 years, Musalman, r/o, C/o Smt. Quresha Begum, Parthripara, District Korba (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Subhash Chandra Prasad S/o Ramashish Prasad, aged about 38 years, r/o Camp No.2, Fish Market, Power House Road, Bhilai (CG) Mohd. Subhan S/o Mohd Israeel; resident of Power House Bhilai, At present Shanker Nagar, Raipur (CG) The New India Insurance Company, through Branch Manager, Raipur Memorandum of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehicSes Act Present: Shri AshoR Dubey and Shri Rajneesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (3rdSVSarch,20G8) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Ashok Dubey & ShrS Rajneesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeilant are heard on admisston. Ih:-- '<<-A: "^s^^s^'" . -„„.-?£'„. seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Acddent Ciaims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Korba, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23-11-2007 passed in Motor Claim Case No. 95/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.29,20,000/- daimed by the appellant / claimant for the death of her son Mohd. Afzal tn the motor accident on 23-07-2005 when the vehicle - Truck bearing registration No. CG-11 ZD 0440 whlch was being driven by him was dashed by the other vehicle - Mahindra Max Pickup bearing registration No. GC-04-TR-8717, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The ciaimant further pleaded that her son - Mohd. Afzal used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as driver. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that claimant's son - Mohd. Afzal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23-07-2005; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ~ Mahindra Max Pickup ; as the offending vehicle - Mahindra Max Ptekup was insured on the date of the accident with New Indla Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. As the evidence led by the claimant about the income of the deceased was not found reliable by the Tribunal, income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal on its own estimate "%,' 'fe^Sl.Y '^::^y^^ g ^,^ ^.-•1'.^' 1»»^, f^ at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting half of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,06,000/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.29,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her son - Mohd. Afzal In the motor accident on 23-07-2005. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 6. Shri Ashok Dubey and Shri Rajneesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in not acceptlng the claimant's evjdence about the income of the deoeased at Rs.3,000/- per month only ; in seiectlng the lower multiplier of 17 though the deceased was ag^t about 23 years only, on the date of the accident ; and in awarding Sow compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- only. 7. True, the claimant pleaded that deceased ~ Mohd. Afzal used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as driver, the evtdence led in that behalf was not of clSnching nature. The best evidence available in that behaif, of the employer of the deceased, for the reasons best known to the claimant, was not adduced before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income ..^y^^:.., ^''^-^^^ :'"•., 't^i"^^;' \ ^..J/ ^.£y b 4 ^ on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8. As there were only two members dependent on the income of the deceased i.e. the claimant and the deceased himseif, the Tribunal has rightly deducted half of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 9. The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunai is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bonabay Vs. Laxman tyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC -731, wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding interest @ 9% per annum. 11. We, therefore, 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 claimant's dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12. The appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 13. With the above order I.A. No. 1/2008 stands disposed of. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge