HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT JMLASPUR MISC. APPEAL fCt N0.474 OF 2010 APPELLANTS 1. Bheema Warsa S/o Late Badde,Aged about 53 years, 2. Smt. Ayati, W/o BheemaWarsa, Aged about 45 years, Both R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.S. - Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 Versus Sanjay Markam S/o Sukalu Martcam, R/o Type-C, 178 Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 2. Arjun Singh Karma, S/o Late Somfu, R/o Type-3, Qr. No.266, Baeheli, Distt. Dantewada- (C.G.) 3. The Orienta! Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.t Present : Shri Santosh Bharat, aiong with Shri Vikas Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. ORALORDER (Passed on 04th day of May, 2010) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation in the award dated 28-10-2009 passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Bastar at Ja^lalpur (for shbrt the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.1730009 whereby and whereunder an amountof Rs.1,80,000/- has been ittwaRled in favourof the appellarrts/daimants atong v^h frrterest 6% per annum. 2. The facts brtefly stated are as under: On 25-06-2006, Ku. Sujita (since deceased) was sittlng as gratuitous passenger in Bolero Jeep bearing regi^ratien No. C.G.18-0/0487 atong with Seema Benjam. The driver of the sajd Bolero by driving the jeep rashly and negligedly dashed against the tree as a result ofwhteh Ku.Sujita (deceased) cUed on the spot and Seema Benjam sustained injuries in the said accident. 3. The appellants/claimants i.e. the unfortunate parents of the deceased flled claim petition under Section 166ofthe Motor Vehictes Act.1988 (for short 'the Act') Glaiming Rs.3,77,000/- as compensation for the death of their daughter i.e. deeeased in the said accident. 4. The leamed Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submisslons made, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum; since the claimants are parents deducted 50% of it towards personal expenses ofthe deceased; apptied multiplier of 10 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of lossof dependency. Theleamed Tribunal has furtherawarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,88,000/- as compensation along with intere^ @6% per annum for the death of the deceased in the said accident from the date ofapplication. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ctaimants would submit that the tearned Tribunal has erred in awardtng tow compensation and the same deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counse! for the appellants, perused the awSrd Impugned. 8. Leamed Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as stated by the claimants; deducted 50% of ft towards personal expenses ofthe deceased and applied the multiplier of 10% and thus assessed the compensation on account of toss of dependency as Rs.1,80,000/-. Kw 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of IUki»lelpal Coyporaffon ofGreaterSomfiayvs Lsoeman lyer sindsmoeier, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, has hetd that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multipli®- should never exceed 10. It is also settled position that in case where deceased was unmarrled and Glalmants are parents, normally 50% is being deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased out of the income of the deceased- 10. In view of above, the leamed Tribunal has not commUtect any iltegality in awarding Rs.1,80,000/- as compensatton on account of loss of dependency. Thie leamed Tribunal has atso awarded Rs.8,000/- on other heads and thus the amount <rf award awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonabte. 11. For the for^ojng, l do not find any illegality in the appeat filed by the appellants. Therefbre, the appeal beir^ devotd of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismlsseA_ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal 1 Judge