HIGH COURTOF CHHARmSGARtLATBLLASPUR Coram:- Hon'ble ShriSunilKumarSlnha& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Abpellants Claimants Respondents M.A.rc)No.1218of2010 1. Smt. Svanlata Sharma Wd/o Late Shri Rajendra Sharma, aged about52 years. 2. Kumari Payal Sharma D/o Lat& Shri Rajendra Sharma, aged about39years. Both R/6 Shyam Bazar, Aran, P.S. and TahsilArang, DJStrict Raipur(C.G.) Versus 1. Pradip Kumar Manikpuri S/o Munna Das, aged about 32 years, R/o Rawabhata, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipyr (C.G.) 2. Sharma Trading Company, B Sharma Complex Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Shh/shanker S/o Amar Bahadur Singh, aged 29 years,R/oGitaNagar, Houge No. 32/7, Bhanpuri, Raipur (C.G.), through the Attomey Holder Sharma Trading Company B. Sharma Complex, Bhanpuri, Raipur (C.G.) 4. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No. 304, 306, 3rd F(oor, Latganga Shopping Maal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Rajpur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER^ECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHieLESACT.1388 Appearance: Smt. Indira Tripathi and Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocates for the appellants. ;„ ^ OralOrder ^7.02.2011) Following order ofthe Court was passed by Sunil KumarSinha. J. Heard on admission. The appellants/claimants have fjled this appeal for enhancement of Cpmpensation awarded in Claim CaseNo. 37/2009 by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 08.09.2010. ° The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 30,18,800/- for death of deceased Pranay Sharma ih the motor accident, which took place on 07.02.2008. a Appellant No. 1 is the mother ofthe deceased and appellant No. 2 is the elder sister of the deceased. They have pleaded that the deceased wasworking as Shiksha Karmi Gradelll and was earning Rs. 4,218/- per month. Salary certificate (Ex.P/12) was atso filed by them in support oftheirabove contentions. The Tribunal, relying on the contents of the salary certificate (EX.P/12), held that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,218/- per month and Rs. 50,616/- perannum.By deducting 50 percent of the said income towards personal expenses of the deeeased, the dependency of theappellant was worked out to Rs. 25,308/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 23 years. The Tribunal, after considering the factsand eircumstance ofthe case,applied muttiplier of 10 to the said annual dependency of Rs. 25,308/- and compensation was worked out to Rs.25,3000^ By awarding further sum of Rs. 7,000/- EI^S^R?T'?3B'' ^a ;<aa^ ^'^^^^s'^'^y^^^i^i^S^^"^"'^^^^^ v'fSS3:S ^ under other permissible heads,the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,60,OOD/-. Thus, the Tribuna! awarded total sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation to theappellant No, 1 for the death of deceased PranayKumar (son of^the appellant No. 1) in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Smt. Indira Tripathi and Mr. Vikash Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the deduction to ttie extent of 1/2" was not proper and multiplier of 10 wasalso a lower multiplier. Admittedty, the deceased was aged about 23 years. He was urimarried. So far as deduction is concerned, the Tribunal has deducted usual 1 /2" , which appears to be genuine in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Sved Basheer Ahamed and Others -Vs-Mohammed Jameel and Another. (2009} 2 SCC 225. in which, it was held that the general rute regarding deduction from the income ofthe deceased is 50%, if he is bachelor and one-third if he is mamed. In view of the above quoted dictum, we find no fault in deduction of 1 /2" towards personal expenses ofthe deceased. So far as multiplier of 10 is concerned, that also appears to be fylly justified in view of the dictum of Apex Court in the matterof Municioal CorporaSon of Greater Bombav -Vs- Laxman Iver & another. f2003}8SCC731. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of eompensatidn awarded to the appellant -No;1. - .. ' ' • ,. : - — J -^^^^^s-^g"^? %. '%^'^ ''^^i'ff' Vijay s' The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^i