HEGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR DSVSSION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRJ SUNiL KU!VIAR SiNHA. J. APPELLANTS CIaEmants 11 IVIIsc. Appeai (0 No. 12SS of2008 1. Rajkumar Aarawai, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Ratiram Agrawaj. 2. Smt. Shahsi Prabha Agrawai, aged about 40 years, W/o shri Rajkumar Agrawal 3. Ku. Plnki Agrawai, aged about 20 years, S/o shri Rajkumar Agrawai 4. Vlkas Agrawai, aged about 16 years, ^4jnor, through his Guardian and father RajkumarAgrawal, A!E the appejiants are R/o ViiEage Podiuproda, Tahsli Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Versus .( ) 1. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 26 DriveE" years, S/o Budhbar Stngh Blnjhvar, R/'o Viliage Choutiya, TahslS Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2. Japendra Singh, S/o Dalvege Slngh, R/o Budar, HalmukamTlfra Biiaspur, TahsiE & Distt Biiaspur (C.G;) 3. Nationai Insurance Company through Branch manager, Branch Office Korba, Tahsii & Distt. Korba (C.G.) MiSCgLy^NEOUS_APPiAL UNDER SECTIONJ73 OF.THE VEHICLES ACT. 1988 • Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appeliants. -\ • \ (17th September, 2008 ) ^ The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ.: Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsei for the appeiiants is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an appiication for condonation of delay in fijing the appeal. 2) On due conslderation; we are satlsfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeai. 3) I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is ailowed and the deiay In fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Parag Kotecha, iearned counsel for. the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) This is ciaimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal Katghora; Dlstrict Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.05.2008, passed in Motor Ciaim Case No.214/2007. 6) The ciajmants, unfortunate parents, brother and slst.er of deceased Santosh Agrawai, claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for his death jn the motor acddent on 11.10.2005 when the motorcycie on which the deceased was traveillng as a piiiion-rider was dashed by the offending vehicie Truck bearing regjstration No. M.P./ 18H/2885, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The claimants further pieaded that deceased Santosh Agrawai used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by workjng as Supervisor with^C^ptractor and by selljng news-papers. 'r3o; 'c 7) The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence fed by the parties held that deceased Santosh Agrawal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.10. 2005; the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was responsibie for the accident; as the orfending vehicEe Tfuck, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Nationa! Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was ilabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By muitlpiying the annuaf dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multipiier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sums under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation to the cislmants aiong with Interest @ 8% per annum from the date of fiiing of the daim petition tiSI the date of actua! payment. 9) Shri Parag Kotecha, iearned counsei for the appeiiants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the cEalmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in deducting 2/3 ofthe Income ofthe deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the iower muitipiier of 15; and in awarding !ow compensation of R^2,25,000/- oniy. 1 fc^<0*^. IEt '^»^^^> ! ^! '^? ^ M 10) The ciaimants though pieaded that deceased Santosh Agrawal used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Supervisor with a Contractor and by seiiing news-papers, the evidence ied in that behaif was not of clinchlng nature. The ciaimants, for the reasons known to them; even did not examine the empioyer of the deceased to estabiish the amount of saiary received by the deceased. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fau!t in the approach ofthe Tribunal In discarding the ciajmants' evldence about the income-ofthe deceased and in assessina his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The deduction of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses also cannot be found fault with in viev^ of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravindra and others, reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C,- 208 (SC). 12) The multjpiier of 15 seiected by the Tribunal is rather on the hlgher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVlunlcipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman iyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was heid that in ' those cases where the ciaimants are parents of the deceased, the muitipiEer should never exceed 10. 13) For the forgolng reasons; we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the income of the deceased or the ciaimants' dependency assessed by the Tribunai or the muitipiler seiected. i;/ s:. 1 ~'?^fe^' 14) The appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismtssed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief Justicc ^•^^