^¥1^'^W 'TOT^I^I"^^^' :^ 'S^ "41^10-4, ^Tfl'y^KS, fcf<?i>iy^< w^r wN?-^"^"&)""^^-9^"^ 200^- 3??t?r ^^ ('^f^^) 1'^TW^iH^I^T APPELLANT: DEFENDANT N0.3 RESPONDENTN0.1: CLAIMANT N0.1 RESPONDENT N0.2: CLAIMANT N0.2 RESPONDENT N0.3: CLAIMANT N0.3 RESPONDENT N0.4: CLAIMANT N0.4 RESPONDENT N0.5: CLAIMANT N0.5 -Ven e^S^^R ^PI^ff ^ 'f^St TRrS^K ^^Rmw^T " usa The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through the DJvisional Manager, Divjsional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) (insuTer of the offending vehjcte) Jai Kumari Bai, widow of Late Vimai Aiias Prakash Chandra Rai, aged about 30 years, Praveen Kumar, son of VJmal ASias Prakash Chandra Rai, aged about 1^ years (Minor) Hemant Kumar son of Vimal A!ias P«B'akash Chandra Rai, aged about 7 years (Minor) Ku. Yogeshwari, Daughter of Late VJmai AIias Prakash Chadra Rai, aged about 6 months (Minor) Dashoda Baj, widow of Late Puiambar aged about 55 years, Minors No. 2 to 4 - through - their naturai guardian mother- Jai Kumari Bai, wldow of Late Vimal A!ias Prakash Chandra Rai, aged about 30 years, All are resident of viliage Vicharpur, PO Manoharpur, GRPRJ—FS/^ ^ ,^/vV. '^A xi-yc—78 ^EET r<M|'q|<^^, ?$TO-M41<S, (sf01^^< ^l^ldl tbNSch ^TT^T^T'f^TW 'cT^'SH^T ^+iw -^ 200 3^t?T T^^R (li^?l^<^) '^rrw^rtt^ ^nt3?r _..cg^ RESPONDENT N0.6: DEFENDANT N0.1 RESPONDENT N0.7: DEFENDANT N0.2 Hon'bte Shri Suni! Kumar Sslnha. JJ. 21-8-2007:. L.C. BHADOO. J. The Oriental Insuranc section 173 of the M.V. Act, <4)l^fd^'i +iH<yiT ^l^st <Pn^l< '^'3tRR3^T "P^:—Lalpur,—Tahsi! Lormi, District Biiaspur(C.G.) 6. Manik La!, about 44 years, syn of Shri Mitihuiai. Driver, Tractor No. C.G. 12 F/0887 Troltey No. C.G. 12 F/0889, resident of viliage Surda, P.S. and Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (DRIVER) 7. Shankar Singh son of Ram Prasad, aged about 54 years, Vehicle owner- Tractor No.C.G. 12F/0887 Trolley No. C.G. 12 F/0889, resident of village Nawapara, P.S. Pali, Distriet Korba (C.G.) {OWNER) (Miscellaneous Appeal ur^der Section 173 of the Motor Vehicte Act) Divjsion • Hon'bSe Shri L.C. Bhadoo a| Shri Sankafp Jaiswal, c^unsel for the appeliant. Orat order dictated on fl)afe. Company has preferred this appeal under 1p88 being aggrieved by the award 11" \A XI-IIC—78 ^^^ f<^i<=h ^T^T ^TO^T^H?^ 3^[ '^1^1^-M, ^-^1(5, fe|0iy4,< WHv\l sb^llcb "^ 200 3^?T ^T^ ( ^eiif^^) '^TTW^f^r 3?r^r -^ 6-2007 by the ,flyaa| Mungeli, in Claim Case Noj assessing annual dependency) & applylng multipjier of 1 7, Rs.10,000,/- has been aliowed the deceased, headin^ has been to the clt awarded against funeral expen| We have heard learned Learned counse! for th4 wrongiy deducted 1/4th of t^ ©xpenseswhereas it ought t|: submitted that monthty Incom^ at Rs.4200/- which is on hjgher] As far as flrst argument] one widow about 30 yea^ chjldren about 12 years, widow, one unit of mother &! Trlbunal has rlghtly deducted ^ formed looking to the size oft^ Tribunal has formed 4 units w|l number of the femiiy membersj As far as question of in^ the evidence, he dolng skil!ed labour, he was workirte Headquarter, therefore, it canr^ <sbl^tcrt41rl ^l*l<;lT ^'fe^ <F3i^j< ^ ^tf^TT 3?T^T ponal Motor Acciaents uiasms Tribuna!, J88/2006 whereby learned Tribunal after |of the claimants to the tune of Rs.37,800/- as^essed dependency at Rs.6,42,600/-, fcowards of consortium to the widow of of love & affectlon Rs.5,000/- tiidren and mother, Rs.4,000/n has tes. ^ounsel for the appellant. appeljant submitted that the Tribunal has |e Income of the deceased as personai b have deducted 1/3 . He further of the deceased has also been assessed Iside. |s concemed, the deceased had left 1-s, widow mother aged about 55 years & 3 f years & 6 months, therefore, if one unit of |one unit of 3 children Is taken, then the |S of the personal expenses. Unlt has to be |e fami!y of the deceased. !n this case, the |hich is just and reasonable, looking to the ^ome of the deceased is concerned, as per |he work of uphoistery, therefore, he was in the city of Bilaspur which is District bt be that Income of the deceased has \.t XI-HC—78 T^T ^t'41^^, ^)TQ^41<o, i«)01^^< 3^?T ^T ^[ch Tf^Pf -37T^T5F^FF '^TTW ^rft^r ^TI^T ^_ s Nl^dl *<4|cb -^ 200 W^T ^W ( <i^itl^^ ) been assessed on hjgher sid^ cannot be considered in any jn the drcumstances, w^ and reasonable daim has Sd/- L.C.Bbadoo Judge chi^(<n41i -Hi*i<yiT ^f^st iPai^K '^'3TRR3?T^T j=^s.140/a- per day to labour Tianner on hjgher side. The income has rjghtly been As far as against headir|g loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- has besn is concerned, looking Vp the age of the wife and of living, it Is also not on higher side. are of the considered opinion just, fair ^ awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any substance In t|iis same is liabSe to be dlsmlssed andit is heTebu^'^nissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \A