,Ai/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.l Misc. Appeal No. (C) -?-?-5 / 2007 Bisfefan 96&S9 APPELLANT (CLAIMANT) ^ .\ / f /a$? .A'>-. <:-J?.I?' 1. Charanjit Singh, S/o. Late Tara Singh, Punjabi, Aged about 28 years, Occupation-Truck owner 85 driver; 2. Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, w/o. Charanjit Singh, Aged 25 years, Both R/o. K.L.C. Block 20, Opposite Hut, Quarter No. 6/F, Zone-2, Khursipar, Ward No. 31, Bhilai, P.S. Ghhaoni, Tahsil SE District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS / (NON-APPLICANTS) 1. Isub Ali, s/o. Mohammad Ali, aged 41 years, R/o. Sayyad Tekra, Opposite the house of Naushad Bandwala, P.S. Borsad, Dist. Anand (Gujrat), Presently residing at-c/o. Jalaram Transport, T.P. Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Tahsil 8s District Durg (C.G.) (Driver ofTruck No. G.J. 7-Y/1944) 2. Nebiyen Bibi, w/o. Miran Mian MaUk, aged 45 years, R/o. Borsad, Tahsil Borsad, Dist. Anand (Gujrat) (Owner ofTmck No. G.J. 7-Y/1944) "nnBnwai^^^^Sl 'he Oriental Insurance Company Lupited, Branch-Borsad, Dist. Anand (Gujrat); (through its Branch Manager), Local Branch- G.E. road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Co. of Truck No. G.J. 7- Y/1944) APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988; APPEAL VALUBD AT THB AMOUNT OF CLAIM RSr8,00,000/-; Iv— AND A COURT FEE OF Rs./W/- IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. HI6H COURT OF JUMCATURE CHHATTCSSARH : BILASPUft MVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. MTTU, CJ <S HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. &) MISC. APPEAL (O N0. 223 OF 2007 Charcmjit Singh & another Isub Ali &others Shri MPS Bhatia, counsel for the gppellants None for the respondents. (Passed on 20" Febniary, The following oral order of the Court was passed by This is an appea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 Qienceforth 'the Act, 1988") filed by the appellants / c!aimants for- enhancement of compensation, which was awcrded by the 12 Additional AAotor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (hencsforth "the Tribunai") vide mvard dated 04.10.2006 in Claim case No.07 of 2005, whereby they have been allowed a compensation of Rs.l,54,5CX5/~. 2} Briefly stated facts are that, on 29.01.2CX)5 at about 3 pm son of the appel!ants / cldmants Baljit Sin-gh, cged about 7 £^- lili.,), \' years was coming from Chorouda to Khursipara on a motor cycle, which was being driven by his grandfather Tarasingh. On their way, respondent No.l, who was driving Truck bearing No.(5J-7- Y/1994 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle resultantly, Ba!jit Singh received injuries and succumbed to those. Being !egal representctives of the dececsed, the appetlants / clnmants filed an application ursder Section 166 of the Act for 9rant of compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicls. Respondents No.l i& 2 remained ex pcfte whereas respondent No.3 contested the claim. Leorned Tribunal ofter appreciation of the evidence, allowed compensotion as bslow ; Rs.1,50,000/- Funera! expenses Rs. 2,000/- Love and affection Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.1,54,500/- 3) Learned counsel for the Qppellants /claimants contended thst Tribunal failed to appreciate just and proper compensation to thern. 4} We hwe gone through the award. Tribunal relyin9 on J.udgment rendered by Hon ble the Apex Court in the matter of Monjudevi ond others Vs Musafir Paswan and others reported in 2005 ACJ 99 .assessed the compensation and awarded the^ ^3 same to the appellants / claimants. It is settled that for assessment of compensation, multiplier method is an appropriate method. Deceased was a child, aged about 7 years. Naturatly, he is not an earnin9 member, therefore, in accordance with Section 163 (a), Scheduie 2 of the Act, notiona! income mcs required to be taken into consideration and Isarnsd Tribunal for dependency accepted notional income and after reducing 1/3 towards his own expenses and applying multiplier of 15, correctly assessed the loss of income to be Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal also properly atlowed Rs.2,000/- for funeral cnd Rs.2,500/- towards love and sffection etc. 5) Finding of fact recorded by tha Tribunal does not appear to be iliegal or infirm, which may require interference by this Court. Therefore, the sppeal being devoid of merit is dismissed in limiae^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge padma