Bablu Sheikh and Another vs Sita Ram Marar and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Counsel for the Appellants is heard on I. A. No. 1 (application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal).

On due consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellants, we are satisfied that the Appellants have succeeded in showing the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

Therefore, I.A. No. 1 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is herby condoned.

Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Counsel for the Appellants is heard on admission.

The Appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased - Totu Khan are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, vide award dated 06-09-2007, passed in Claim Case No. 44/2007.

As against the compensation of Rs. 32,00,000/- claimed by the claimants for the death of their son Totu Khan in the motor accident on 25-03-2007, when the motorcycle on which he was travelling as pillion-rider was dashed by the offending vehicle - jeep bearing registration No. C.G.04/ZP/1165, resulting inmultitple serious injuries to Totu Khan, who succumbed to those injuries in the hospital during the course of his treatment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,82,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment.

Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting half of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 4,82,000/- only to the claimants.

So far as the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- per month is concerned, the Appellants can have no grievance as they themselves pleaded that deceased - Totu Khan used to earn at Rs. 8,000/- per month.

As there were only three members in the family including the deceased ; the father of the deceased being aged about 42 years only, was himself an earning member; the deceased being un-married and aged about 22 years, would have been married in due course, within 4-5 years; we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the claimants'' dependency by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 48,000/- per annum.

The selection of multiplier of 10 by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.

We, therefore, do no find any infirmity in the computation of the compensation by the Tribunal.

As we do not find any scope or 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, the appeal filed by the Appellants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.