HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. n/lisc. Appeal (0 No. 1012 of 2011 Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Smt. Savitri Devi, w/oShiv Prasad, aged about 44 years, Shivgrasad, s/o Mohar Say, aged about 50 years, Both r/o Dharam Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. Permanent Address Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, ward No.10, Koriya, district Koriya C.G. VERSUS Omprakash Nahar, s/o Chandmal Nahar, occupation Rice Millar, r/o Bhakhara, thana Bhakhara, district Dhamtari C.G. (Owner of vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.07/ZC/0146) United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, opposite Kutchery, near Shashtri Chowk, Krishna complex, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of Vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.07/ZC/0146) Memo of appeal ynder Section^l73 of Motor Vehicle Act -f.— Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. ORDER •th (26l"September,2011) ,^^ ?; ~^H!Ti',^. AC.No. 1012 Of 2011 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideiation of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appetlants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants are heard on admission. 5) The unfortunate parents of deceased Omprakash are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10 Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No.41/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.15,46,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Omprakash by filing a cl^lm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.01.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,739/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. AC.No. 1012of2011 7) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in-awarding low compensation of Rs.2,00,739/- only. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,00,739/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Omprakash used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as driver, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) As deceased Omprakash on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his n- AC.No. 1012of2011 personal expenses, also cannot be found fault with 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. 12) The multiplierof 10 selected bytheTribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the'Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer 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. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do 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. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ?s Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge