t-\ 1 DSVISIOiy BENCK :EV' HON'BLE SUNSL J. 1SC..APPEAL (C'l N0. 78 of 1. Birsinah Rathiva, S/o Shri CLAIMANTS Singh Rathiya, aged about 48 years, occupation - social work 2. Srnt. Ba'nartin, wife of Birsingh Rgthiya, ayed abOut — 45 yeiiiS All by caste - Kanwar and resident of viiiage - Laripani, Tahsii- Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 'B3<T»B If? 'Eil&Us 1. Vijav Kumar Agrawat, S/o APPLICANTS Shankar Lai Agravvai, occupation — owner of the Vehicle, R/o C/0. Shital Sads, Nai Sadak, Near Shubhash Chouk, Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Gopal Prasad, S/o Sahas, Caste- Gond, occupation - Driver of vehicle, resident of viiiage- Madawa, Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). .3. i.C.I.C.I. Lombard Geners insurance Company through- Sranch Manager, I.C.i.C.l. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, registered office S.C.l.C.I. Bank Towers, Sandra Kurla Complex Bandre (East) Mumbai - 4000.51 (Maharashtra) ECTION 173 OF Riir»Tr>B\wft <='; &r>T ••aee iVSi^ i t^S^. -yib-a iii^PSaifc-^S t^i\^ l ^ S $<'»§? Present: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for thi appeHants. ORDE (23" Janua"/, 2009) i 2 ^z iowina order of the Court i. Shri IVIanoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsei for the appellants is heard on aa.mission. 2) The appeal filed by the appeliants on 15.01.2009 tbr enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Raiaarh, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.03.2007, passad in Ciaim Case No.15/2006, is reported to be hopelessiy time-barred by as many as 557 days (more than one and half years). 3) As against the compensation of Rs.31,61,0721- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dayashankar, by fjling a claim petition under Section 166 of the IWotor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21.10.2005, the Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as compensatlon along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual pavment. 4) Shri IVianoj Kumar Sinha, iearned counsel for the appellants vehemently argue-d that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- only. 5) Th.e Tribunai assessed the Income of the deceased at L Rs.15,000/- per annum; by deducting 1/3ra of Rs.15,OOQ/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitlDlier of .17, the com.oensation was worked out to Rs.1,70.000/-: by awarding further sum of Rs.32,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as compensatlon to the clalmants vflth snterest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition ti!l the date of actua! 6) As the evidence fed by the claimants about the income the deceased was not of ciinching nature, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule undsr Section 163-A of e MotQr Vehicles Act. 7) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as the ieceased being an unmarried person aged about 23 years, the ieduction towards his personal expenses couid have been to the sxtsnt Qf 2/f3 in vlsw of th6 dEctum Qf ths ADSX ln th6 csss Qf reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C. -208 (SG), 8) The muitlplier of 1 7 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the hiaher side, In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer another, reported in (20031 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased; the multiplier should never exceed 10. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for _enhancement of-'the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. X-A 4 10) The appeal flled by the appellants/claimants enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed snd is herebv dismissed on merits notv/ithstandinci that it is hope!essly time-barred by as many as 557 days (more than one and halfyears). Sd/- ChiefJusfice Sd/- Kumar Sinha Judge subbu