Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 359 (CHH)

TIHARU RAM v. GUPTESHWAR NISHAD

2008-12-11

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, c.J.:- 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on LA. No. 01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No.1/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC). Korba (for short 'the Tribunal '), vide award dated 14.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 180/ 2007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.3,73,20,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Chhatram Kewat, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling of the claim petition. 7. Shri Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- only. 8. The claimants pleaded that their son Chhatram Kewat, who Was aged about 19 years used to earn Rs.7,500/- as Carpenter. The Tribunal considering that the deceased was pursuing his occupation as Carpenter in a small village in the District of Korba, assessed his income at Rs.3,OOO/- per month. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the income of the deceased has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. 9. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though in view of the dictum of the Apex in the case of Donat Louis Machado & ors. Vs. L. Ravindra and others), the deduction could have been to the extent of2/3rd of the income of the deceased as the deceased was unmarried and after his marriage his contribution towards the parents would have been substantially reduced. 10. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. 10. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer & another2, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed IO. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismisses summarily. Appeal Dismissed.