HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BNISION BENCH C9RAM: HONaBLE SHR§ RAJEEV $UP?A, SJ. HGN’3LE SHR} RANGNATH CHANERAKAR J. Misc. Appeai No. 39? of 26% Ameiiams 1. Smt. Bund-kunwar, aged about 4O years, chimams wife cf Chetram. 2. Chetram, aged about 45 years, Sfo. Charan Patei. Both R/o, viiiage Bhandhuwapara post Kodiya, RS. Seepat, Tahsil Séepat, Dssmct Bilaspgr (0.6.) Vearsu$ Resmndenm Shri Satyanarayan Pandey, Sm. Vyas i‘xégn-appiicams Namyan Pandey, Rio. Viiiage Bandhuwapara, Post Kodia, RS. & Tahsil Seepat, District Bitaspur (0G) 2a Smt. Binda Devi, d/o. late Ram Jivan Pandey, RIO. Vittage Khapari, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, distt. Bitaspur (£16.) 2b Smt. Rajeshwari, dio. tate Shri Ram Jivan pandey, R/o, Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahstt & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2c Smt. Rama Bai, d/o. tate Shri Ram Jivan Pandey, R/a. Shankargarh, Sahdot. 2d Smt. Shyama Bat, D10. tate Shri Ram Jivan Pandey, R/o. Nayapara, Gotbazar, Raipur (C.G.) The United tndia insurance Company ‘L§mited, thrcugh Divisionat Manager, Divisionat Office Biiasp‘ur, Tahsti & District Bttaspur (C.G.) M ct isc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicla A Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Pawan Kesharwani, §earned cour‘usel far the appeiiants. Shri Rakesh Sahu, {earned counse! for respondents NGJ and 2 b. GREER (3rd May, 2010) The fonowing order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the pariies are heard on MCP No.1236l2006, a petition 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 K sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.1236/2006, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the cempensation awarded by Eighth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) v'ide award dated 24.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 71 of 2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.29,20,000/— claimed by the appe‘llants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Karan /?" 4/ //,y a0) Kumar Patel, by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16052002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,44,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 7') Shri Kishore Bhaduri and'Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptingthe claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,44}5001— only. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Karan Kumar Patel used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Motorcycle Mechanic, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 9) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 10) The Tribunat has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3” of the income of the deceased towards his personai 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 dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammad Jameei and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. ‘za/T ,; "7’ 1 1) The mu!t§p!ier of 15 seiected by the Tribuna! is also on the higher side as the ciaimants 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 [yer and another, reported in (2003) 8 $CC-131, wherein it was heid that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased; the multiplier should never exceed 1'0 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement oi the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismisWmissed summarily; - Sd/- Rangnat Chandrakar Judge subbu Sd/~ hef Justc ; l Ci ie h i