3!S5T •<ii<JKi<i,^1gi'K?, Iqinitiy 3ll3i?l'<5|tt> ii*<nin>«<i«i>"'"'"""""""'"W( 200 9^) •ni^-li 6W]<tK.Bftff HI6H COURT OF CHlllATnSSARH AT BILASPUR M. A. (0 APPELLANT Applicants RESPONDENTS Present: Mrs. AAeera Jaiswal, Advocatel Mr. Abhishek Sinha; Advocat^ for respondent No.3 O R A L ttn<fr*r*n*tcii H I<S%T <ra^df< ^siRlTaii^rr M0.291 OF 2006 1. R.K; Yadav, aged about 50 years, S/o Shasuram Yadov (Father of deceased). 2.5mt. Chandravali Yadnv, aged about 47 years, W/o Shri R.K. Yodav, (mother of deceased). Both R/p L.I.6.-2/2474, Housing Board, Industrial Aria, Bhilai;&isn. burg (C6) LRiaz Ali, 5/o Umend Ali, R/o near f-1addi fiodam, Bus Stand, Seoni, (AA.P.) Driver. 2. Abdul im, S/o Shikh Nawab, Near Chhoti AAasjid, Seoni (AA.P.) Owner of the Vehicte. 3. tSrvisional Monager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kachdchari Chowk, Raipur (C.6.) for the appellants. with Mr. &hanshyam Patel, Advocate ru D6 ME NT XI-HC-22 an^T^T R-fi'tisii^r Stili'ii^lfeT ?ti+ii«sh 3^ •^mvn,^S\wi<i, Rictlyy 311^1 ^siqi 2/ II*IMI sii»n«t> W); 200 {^^ •sn^r 6WW<R<Ifer •<ii<iTtr"te^)'<.Riwi< ^sif^iran^r (Passed oh 20/04/2007) 1) This is claimants' appejil for enhancement of compensation awarded for the deatt) of their son namely Rakesh Yadav, who died in a motor <j ehicle accident on 27.7.2005. The tribunal has awarded 4 sum of Rs.6,91,776/- with interest © 6% per annum from|the dote of application i.e. 12.8.2005 by applyirig multiplier oHl. 2) It isnot disputed th{rt deceased died at the age of 22 years and atlhot tim4 he was bochelor. The claimants are :' . 1. . • . __ \ ._ . parents of the <leceas4d, who are aged 50 years & 47 years r-espectively and thus only grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that th^ tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier of 13 ond nstead, has applied muH'iptier of 11 considering the avera^e age of the parents of deceased as 50 years, though fro^n the evidence available on record, which is notdisputed [sy the other side, the average age of the claimcints was 48^ years and as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, |1988 multiplier ought to<jjcive been applied ot 13 and not an^r^f^iN; tpn'sn^TsTOR' fW ^^L^ 3'sr ^iqio^, 8'Tny'Ko, Ricii^y *11*1MI ai^T^> ^ 200 gn^rTg^?(i^tgg^r) 5OTW;Hl?a'SIT^r ^ 3) Learned counsel for th^ other heads i.e. expen^ affection, lossto estat^ sum of Rs.25,000/- compensation has be^ multiplier. Reliance is Supreme Court- in the Versus Karnatoka in (2004) 2 Supreme 4) On the other hand, lec+ Insurance Company retjf Apex Court in the other V. L. Ravindra 1400 has submitt-ed applied in this case \i\ claimants, neverthelessl, deduction o-f l/3rd towards his personal to have been made con^i , would have spent 2/3 and his own family u/hi cbl^td'ift^T ^ IKdT^'fe^t <R|<^1< ^)3TRtIT3l1^T i^ appellant submits that even under tes towards funeral, loss of love A and medical expenses, only a paltry has been awarded and even be^n assessed by applying wrong placed on the decision of Hon'ble rjnatter of Fakeerappa and another Cem^nt Pipe Factory and others report C<(urt Cases 473. leo^ned counsel for respondent No.3- 1^'ing upon the judgment of Hon'ble of Oonat Louis Mochodo and |nnd others reported in 1999 ACJ though multiplier of 11 has been place of 13 as per age of the \, the tribunal has wrongly taken from the income of deceased and deduction of 2/3r ought |idering the fact thot the deceosed amount of his earnings on himself ilch he would have raised with the maflter thtit amolunt exBenses K XI-HC-78 sn^rwf^tN; (WT3n^?Tstit< m ^^ ~s:5cf ^iiiid-4, ®T)IUJI<»,Riciiuy,< *11*1WI Sh*lich ^ 200 3<1^1 4^* (^f?p^T) g^nwHfN'sn^r 1 Ldc lapse of time, had he a sum of Rs.6.91 compensation to the the overall situation interference is called f<i bfeen alive. It is further argued that & odd has been awarded as ct^imants and therefore, considering ^xisting in the present case no Ir. 5) I have heard learned co 6) There is no dispute wit justified in applyin9 the^ correctly deducted only^ earning. 7) From the evidence avai] the deceased wos 22 ye qil<<fl1<ft;Tt11*«3Tfff3I^l'<Fa|'h;K ^srf^riTan^r jnsel for the parties. h respect to the fact that the only question to be adjudic^ated is whether the tribunal was muti'iplier of 11 considering the age of the parents of dece^ised and whether the tribunal has ird 1/3''° amount for computing loss of lable on record it is observed that srs old boy who did his graduation in engineering and was en^ployed with a private concern and drawing salary more th|an Rs.7,000/- per month. The loss sustained by the poor ^arents towards the deoth of their young A promising son c^an never be compenscrt-ed^.liowever, considering the age an<^ further considering th qualification of the deceased and e•background of the claimants it would be just and appro|?riote to assess the claim f^orwhjcj """"l^°i::B"a^^ XI-HC-78 3I1^TqiTR-<i4i (mrsfRWsft^iti IS- K:\ Roshan/- '^ 'ssf riiiiiici<), s'Tflu'is, Ridiyy ^t7 *TI*1WI Sh*11tt> ^[ 200 311^1 4a»h(I^3^ST) BTBRRHfN'sn^T °hllF<1tfl-< 11Hci'l'fftet^t'<Rl«K ^srf^q'sn^r the appellants were enti|'led by applying the muh'iplier of 12 instead of 11. 8) In the result, for the| foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the a^nount of compensation is coniputed by applying multiplier o|f 12 which comes to Rs.7,27,392/- and instead of Rs.25,C 3P/-, Rs. 50,0)0/- is awarded under the various heads i.e. e^penses towards funeral, loss of love and affection, ioss to es^-ate and medical expenses. Thus, an additional sum of Rs.85 with interest © 6% p.a. poyment of this odditiorjal amount: No order as to costs. 616/- is awarded to the appellants from the dote of claim petition till Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge . P.T.O. r i E<WBi&s^3ae^?^;i?aWfliyhiuys^oi^k!dA^Bfci^^ '^ESSSTT-:-