HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 756 of 2010 1 Hridyaram Saw, s/o Bhaktu Saw, age 44 years, 2 Smt. Sobhita Saw w/o Hridyaram Saw, aged about 40 years. Both appellant R/o Barik Colony, Tajnagar, Saraypali, distt. Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS 1 Harendra Yadaw s/o R.S. Yadaw r/o village Rathua, thana Bramhapur, distt. Baksar (Bihar) (NonapplicantNo.1 Driver) 2 Harendra Kumar Dube, s/o Shri Umeshchandra Dube r/o Vasundhra Nagar, Vijau Chouk, Changora Bhata, Raipur, C.G. (Non applicant No.2 Driver) 3 I.C.l.C.l. Lombard General Insurance Company, Lalganga Shopping Mat, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. (Non applicant No.3) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (01st November, 2011) -y -'^^ 1 I "^llj •^ wy MAC.No. 756 of 2010 o The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.52/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Khemraj by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death jn the motor accident on 02.01.2009, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low ^-^^^,:^ -;':'?:^ "i:tj /:-.1/ ^":"^y^/ MAC.No. 756 of 2010 compensation of Rs. 1,62,0007- only though deceased Khemraj would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. 8) Deceased Khemraj, on the date of the accident was aged about 16 years only. Though the claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs.200/- per day by repairing mobile phones, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.200/- per day. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate. 9) As deceased Khemraj was unmarried on the date of the accident, the deduction of 1/3 of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses is rather on the lower side in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it has been held that in those cases where the deceased is unmarried the deduction towards the personal expenses can be to the extent of 50%. 10) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer MAC.No. 756 of 2010 c-7 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. 11) For the foregoing reasons, wedo not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 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 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu