HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1141 of 2009 APPELLANTS CLASMANTS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Satbai Kurre, W/o. Bhagwat Prasad, (wrongly mentloned as Kusar) Kurre, aged about 39 years, 2. Bhagwat Prssad Kurre, S/o. Late Samaru Prasad Kurre, aged about 40 years, Both R/o. Shantipara, Ekta Nagar, Camp-1, Police Statlon - Chhawni, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Sunil Gawle, S/o Sashikant Gawle, aged about 32 years, R/o. Adarsh Nagar, Camp-1, Police Station - Chhawni, BhiSai, Djstrict Durg (C.G.) C/o. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, R/o.- M.I.G. - 2/2233, M.P. Housing Board, Industrial Area, Poiice Station - Jamul, Bhilai, district - Durg (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle Truck beartng registration No. C.G./07/ZC/0629) 2. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, \Nto. Late Jagraj Singh, aged about (not mentioned), R/o. M.I.G.-2/2233, M.P. Housing Board, Industriai Area, Police Station - Jamyl, Bhilai, district - Durg (C.G.) (Registered owner of vehtele Truck bearing registration No. C.G./07/ZC/0629) 3. The Divisional Manager & Office, the New Indla Assurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Division !• ^' ^t; Office, Thakkar Chambers, above the Union Bank, G.E. Road, Power House, Near the Bus Stand, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G./07/ZC/0629) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TME MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsei for the appellants. ORDER »rd (3raSeptember,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.31/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.9,21 ,QOOf- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Chandrika Prasad Kurre by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 28.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,59,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. (n< 4. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,59,500/- only. 5. The claimants pleaded that their son deceased Chandrika Prasad Kurre used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month as Helper on the Truck and was also getting daily allowance of Rs.50/- per day. The Tribunal accepting the claimants' evidence in that behalf assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 6. As the income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as was pleaded by the claimants, the claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance in that behalf. 7. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income ofthe 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 as the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantjally. 8. The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be foutd fault with as the claimants are parents ofthe deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipat Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the clalmants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. v.f.- 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do n<A find any scope for enhancement of the compensation eifher on accoont of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the daimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 10. The appeal filed by the appetlante/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice ...^' /" Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu