d5) HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Misc. Aopeal (C) No. S59 of 2007 1. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o. Jageshwar Prasad Sharma, aged 45 years, 2. Jageshwar Prasad Sharma son of Late Salikram Sharma, aged 50 years. Both resident of village Kamta, Post - Murta, Tahsil and Po!ice Station Nawagarh, District Durg RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Ashok Jaiswal son of Mayaram Jaiswal, aged 52 years, resident of village Rajapara, Sarangarh, District Rajgarh, at present residing at R.T.O. Office, Bilaspur (Driver of sumo No. C.G. 02/0090) 2. Transport Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Ravi Nagar, Raijxir MEMO^FAPPEALUNDERSECTIOMnSJ^^ MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Maiay Kumar Bhaduri and Shri PX Tuteyan, leamed counsel forthe appellants. ith ORDER (4m September, 2009) A The following' order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: ® @ Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri and Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 2. The appellants are seeking enhanceraent of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No.52/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.47,81,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Anil Sharma by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 10.07.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argu^l th^ the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evjdence about th6 income of the deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- only. 5. True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Anil Sharma used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working in a Private Firm, but the evidence led in that behaif was not of clinching nature. 6. Neither the ^mployer of the deceased nor any other \ employee of the said firm was examined before the Tribunal to establish that deceas^d Anil Sharma was in fact employed in the said firm and was getting the amount of Rs.6,000/- as salary. @ nimmi 7. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on jts own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 8. The Tribuna! has been quite liberat in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal e^enses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the exlent of 50% of the income of the deceased as the deceased on the date of (he accident was unmarried and after his marriage, hjs contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially. 9. The multiplier of 1 1 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higherside in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of ttw deceasedand in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVIunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Syer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased; the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte to be dismjssed and is herebv dismissed, summarily. Sd/-K Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge