HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. ADDellants ,\ IVI.A. (0 No.99 of 2010 1 Durjanlal Chandrawanshi, S/o Bhikham Singh Chandrwanshi, aged about 50 years, 2 Smt Ahiman Bai Chandrawanshi, W/o Durjan Singh Chandrawanshi, aged about 45 years Both R/o Village - Daihan, Post Jadotola, Police Station - Gendatola, District - Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS 1 Dilip Wahne, S/o Chamru Wahne, aged about 30 years, R/o Leharanaka, Ward No. 21, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham 2 Hamid Khan, S/o Mahnudin Khan, Village & Post - Silheti, PS Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham (CG) 3 Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company, Parakh Bhawan, Railway Station Road, Durg (CG) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. ORDER ISt (01SI February, 2810) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ") _^ r aaw Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appeltants is heard on IA No. 1/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that, the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause"for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counset for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunat, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.95/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.19,90,024/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Shantaram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,52,440/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of thp claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued fhat the Tribunat has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 10 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,52,440/-Jinly. ^ ..<.. 8) So far as the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,218/- per month is concemed, the claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance as theirevidence itselfwas to the effect that deceased Shantaram was getting salary of Rs.4,218/- per month asShiksha Karmi Gr- III. 9) 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 fact that deceased Shantaram on the date of the accident was unmarried and after his marriage, hiscontribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially and in view of the dlctum 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. 10) The multiplier of 10, selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municlpal Corpoi-ation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, whereirT it. was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the 'deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. _^ ^.y,,^ <'r,;sz«A "4 'SS^s. 1 j .^ 4 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^