p HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants/ Claimants •^- Respondents MAfClNo.400of2010. 1 Bisenath Jangde S/o late Budhram, aged about 50 years. 2 Smt. Lukam W/o Bisenath Jangde, aged about 47 years. Both R/o Village Barbaspur, Poltoe Station Kotwali, District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1. Chaturbhuj Sahu S/o Kangalu Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Arjunda, Police Station Saraipali, DJstrict Mahasamund (CG). 2. Kishore Kumar Agrawal S/o Noonkaran Agrawal, aged about 47 years, R/o Padampur Road Sohela, District Bargarh (Orissa). 3. Divisional Manager, United jnsurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (CG). Memo of appeal under Section 173 of ttie Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri and Shri P.K. Tuteyan, counsel for the appellants. ORDER (12th April, 2010) 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 enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.02.2010, passed in Claim CaseNo. 155/2009. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.19,20,0007- daimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Rakesh Jangde, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri and Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal 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 only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- only. 5. True, the daimants pleaded that their son Rakesh Jangde used to earn Rs.150 - 200/- per day as mining labour, no reliable evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, the TribunaJ was left with no other option, but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. ^ h "^-^ 6. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month; and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 7. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 8. The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court jn the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and 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. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge