HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH : N’BE SHRI JEEV GUPT & HON’BL SRI I KUMR SH Chaitram Tandiya, S/ R Prasad, aged bout 66 ears Sh Kunwar, Wlo. Chairam dw Aged about 62 years, oth /o Village nkha Dafi B R Pa a, N ur hs o.1, Chhakachhar, Tail Katghora, District Krba (CG) 1 . laas 1 Bhukhan m, S/o all nha RIVE ’beut 32 years / lll ohd .‘ Dharsv iict CG) ' nhwar a e ,o. Khorbahr R R/o il a eerao Blk a t ur (G) 2(B) C.S. erma, Slo. Khoraa, Rlo. Adarsh Nagar usmund, Qtr NOB7; Kusuna, ist orb (CG) ’ 2) Verm S/o Krbahara m (art of la Tury Chwk Sudr r t N 10 Rur t (CG) ' Te h New Ia ndi inune srac Cmpany o Ltd DiVisina ol Mane agr Bh ranc Offe cr Bilasr pu (CG) N INSURER Gota Kera learned counse t apllant N fr redets No 1 A 2(8) and 2(C) one o sponn 2(), \ a learn counsel for sn ,N Present. Shri um htapl l for he pes Shri GVK Ro ed repondet o3 — /i . Coram HOL RA A C J E H SUNL A INA J MA. No. 917 of 2004 o am a y ad t Tana, p VERSUS APPELLANTSI Cimnt RESPONDENTS Ra Mu Si DR Aged a , Ro Vage ‘ Ma, PS. ia,- Dstr Raipur( Dhaes Rm Vrma, S/ aa am Vl Akoii : Viy Vgn oc Dharsw Disrict Raip C V bhar Ka /22 md Dt Ka (0 M K a ho Ra Dcpartm Sale Tdx) R _, rlmt o na Naga Qr o 8 aip Distric Raipur ‘ OWEk 2(A) Miscellaneous Aggeal Uls 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ORDER (10m December, 2008) The followmg order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.(C.)P. No.1257/2004, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appea! .3 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. 3. M.(C.)P. No.1257/2004 therefore is aiiowed and the delay In fillng the appeal ls hereby condoned ' 4. ’ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admissmn 5. This Is claimants appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims‘Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 02.09.2003, passed in claim case No.1 0/2002. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.16,25,000/- claimed by - the claimants unfortunate parents of deceased Prayag Tandiya for his death In the motor accident on 01 09 2001 the Tnbunai awarded a total sum of Rs 2 52 000/- as compensation along With interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of‘the claim pet'ition‘till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Ioiw compensation of Rs.2,52,000l— only. ¢ Li"' éu ‘ ubb 8. to earn Rs.4,000l— per th t any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs 2 SOOI- per month. 9. s we do not find any scope for interference so far as the assessment of th concerned, adduced in eVId As the Tribunal has been qwte liberal In deducting only a um of RSBGOI- towards the personal expenses of the deceased found fault With In View of the dlctu of Mummp m of the Apex Court in the case‘ al Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and'another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 731 wherein it was held hould never exceed 10. i1. We, therefore do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal 12 The appeal therefore rs llabl are parents of the that in thoseCases where the claimants deceased, the multiplier s 10. ‘ The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal alsocannot be i i The Claimants pleaded that their son Prayag Tandiya used month as Sports Instructor The Tribunal on e basis of the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.A/?) ence before the Tribunal assessed the income of [he deceased at Rs 2 8001~ per month We therefore do not find e claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal is ll l. e to be dismissed and is ; : V Sunil Kumar Sinha ”VI ii ‘ Judge Sdl- i‘l c n gcmef Jusu'ce a Wfudge /\ x