,coumTEIES EXEIUIPT6D g^wTy(CAT(ONNO.;99^287wo<l. B?5^SSPECLREi[NSWE5GC6 I& H OF THE COUflt-FEESACTT870'~ ^''"'Benrt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH M. A. ( Cl No. l:^ ....../2007 '-> APPELLANTS NON-APPLICANTS p RESPiONDENTS APPLICANTS ^A^'^ '""^''^:" y ^.^'l''':~^ S^k^^^m^^ ^^.r^-r ,\ ^^^ ^- oa# ^ry ^'y^ ../>>^ ..-""^".^' ^>"' ~v€^"" 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, G.E. ROAD, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.). 3. MOHAMMAD, S/o MUMTAJ ALI MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEAR PWD OFFICE, G.E. ROAD, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.). Versus 1. BINDA BAI, WIDOW OF LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2. MANTHIR RAM SAHU, S/0 LATE NANUHA RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 3. BHOJ BAI, D/0 LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 4. KU. RENU, D/0 LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS. 5. KU.ASHA, D/0 LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. 6. PURUSHOTTAM, S/0 LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. RESPONDENTS N0. 4 TO 6 ARE MINOR, THROUGH THEIR MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. BINDA BAI W/o LATE MEHATTAR RAM SAHU. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BANKAL, TAHSIL DONGARGAON, POLICE STATION LALBAGH, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON (C.G.). ®fc MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE AWARD AND DECREE, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, R^JNANDGAON IN CLAIM CASE N0^ 103/2006 ^ ON 17.09.2007. v <^ •Lt.^-^ ^T ^ ^ ^ ^^1 ( ^ HI6H COURT OF CMHAmSCARH AT BILASPUR bIVISIONBENCM: HON'BLE k. I.M.OUDDUSIA HON'BLE MR.NAWAL laSHOWE ^ARWALj JJ ApDaUants RasDondents M.A.fe) No.1386/2007 State of Chhocttjsgcirh and 2 others Vs Binda Bai and 5 others PMSOTt; AAr. Vinay Harjt, Dy. Advocate ©weralfor thc appetlants. None -fw the resptwidents. ORDER fOnift (26th Nowtnb»r, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants have filed thjsmisceHc^ous appeal ^^^^ the <flwflu"cl dated 17.09.2007 passedjnCta(mCas®Np.W3/20p6^^w Accident Ckiims Tribunat. Rajncund9<ion (for shorl' ^he trjbunqr) has altowed the claim petition of the clajmwts and awarded a swn of Rs.3,30,50p/- as compensation atong with interest @ 12% p,& payable •from the date of fi|in9 of clalm appljcat-ion till the paynient is made. 3. Brief fwts of the cas®are tha* thc cla|rewrts/r®sponderrt-^^ w|4ow, mother and chjldren of the deceased, have fited tke cjaim petitton before the tribunal seeking compensotjon to the tun®of Rs.21,30,OOQ/- for the death of deceasect Mehtar Sahu who died jn Qro^ e^d^tokwtj^ace on 31.7.2006 due to rash and negllgent drtymg of the appelJant N0,3 hwejn, who was dnying the vehicte owned <uid i^ister^ in thename of <^ 4. The tribunal, after consjdering the jssues framed by jt, aflowed the clajm application of the claJmcuTl's/rNBSponde^ a cwn(>ens<:ri-ion of RsJ,30,50pAunderv<riousheads|tlongNfJthtnteres^ 5. Learned counsel for the dp{»eUqnts hccs submJtt-ed thot the liwrne^ tribu^ has erred in ecsessing the rnorrthly income ofthe deceased and therelFore, the amount awarded t^ the cldmwts js too exc«ssive. He fu that interest <u»ardedby the tribunal is on the higher side and the same js liable to be reduced. 6, We have hewd lewned counsel fpr the parties and perus^d the jm^ award as also records of the tribunal below. 7. From perusal of the impugned awcrd, it is evident that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basls of notional mcome prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A o^ the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 j.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. and thus, the tribunal has not committ-ed any illegality or infirmjty Jn assessing the income ofthe ideceasecj and the same is hereby confirmed. Besides this,the wiounts awcrded^^^^^^^^ the tribunal under other permissible heads we also in occordance with the amount mentioned in the Second Schedule provided undler Section 163A of the Act. 8. However, the Jnterest @ 12% p.a. grantecl by the trjbynot appeqrs to be on higher side cuid the same is liable to be reduced to 6% p.a. Therefore, we direcl- thof the amoimt under award shdl carry interest @ 6% p.a. throughout from the dote of appljcation tiII the actual poyment js maele. 9. Accordingly, the appeal js allowed in p<rt <emid the impugned award js modifjed to the od-ent jndicoted above. 10. Cert-jfi^l copy as perrules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^..