\..'^ ^° ,\y HK3H CWSSWOP CHHATNSGARH AT BILASPTOt COT^am : Haa^bte SIurl Simll Kumar Stailia^^^ 'H<>n*l>le,SIu't:Ra3<Kiilwirarl I^IJ|Buttnai|H|,.|^ Misce. Appeal (C.t No.l76/2006 •s-v^ i:lllli^;: APPBLLANTS/ dflim^iitf 1, Shats^ghaa I>raaad^^^^^^^^I^^ ,RsuB'.B]|ii^]KgiS10iu^^ SSyears 2. Smt Cliand^ Kii^^^ ^ ;aiiattTigt^^ •46 ycwQ, - :. . • .-• -^:.......—..•.••.•..;.::—.-.;-t:. 3. Vikash^ Dxibey s/o Shatn^haa PTQB^D^ey^Q^^^^^^ All R/o viUage Jarway (Hard^ PS Baloda Tah ^^^ ^ Chanipa(CG) .-.;,:..^'' •. •"i:.^-'::'.:.^ iy-.,€ ^•M:.\ RBSPONDBNTS Npn aDpIicacilte Versus 1. K.P. Saxnual s/o Sri T^)^ Pa^ ,.l'agedl'.aboiit'42,,3flE^^ 1/178, ¥adiuia3adai N^^1'ifi"a& : P..S.,:::, ,.Civil,,Lui^,::1,1Rali:,:.&~,^lDi^rMst?' Bilaspur(GG)-Driver 2. Sarva Maii^^^^^ Thrbu^ ChimN^DiTectcxr s^ Ariui kiuaiar latli S/Q^^^^^^^^^ 1^ :HaiisIiaalcar, 'lg^L..agecl;,la]boi^j%^ years, R/o Bus Staaad Bi^ Tali.-'' ;;District' ;:':'Bilas{mrBS:;l'/:'(<^ .Owiier....................... ,..:.•............... .....,..- •.....,.....: ....^, ,,^..,,'.';i 3. New laidia laasuraojce Go< LNt, Throi^gh Braiich Maaiagei^ Ete^^ Rajendia Nagar^^^^^^^^^^ District Bilaspur (C(^-- tes^ €rm» APPEAL imPBR SECTIOW 173 OF THB MOTORVBHIGiaS AGt^ ll988''.;:.'.L'l'^l:'"' ;';'''1;''::'1' - .^^^^^ -","--—j'\ '€.. '1 ^s^ •":^^^^ MAC 76/2006 ^ Apt>earaitce: • . • ••;•.-•.....•:...^^^^^^^ Shri Ravish Verma, Advocate for fhe a^^la:Qt$, ^^^^^^^ Shri N,K. Chattexjee, Advocate for respoiidejGrtiS No.l aod ^ ^ Shri Haauixiao. Prasad Agrawal, ASbWFQte l^^^^^^^^j^^ No.3. ^^^^KAS^Q^mR .' : ;•:-.• . -. . - , .f &:-'•. (20.8.2010) PerSuaUKumar Sialia.J. Heard on M{C^ ^o.l430f200€^ wi s^asi^^t^w condcmation ofdelay m filmg fhe appeal, Accordiiig te the ofiEice rcport^ the ap^^^ :M::^ days ofluiitetioxi- On dfcie consideratkm of fhe submissioiaEts crf leaa^aa^ <^^ for4fhe parties aod fhe grcmmls takeri m ffae ap^lwatiott condonation of delay, we are satisfied fhat t} appellai^^^^^^^^^^to showxi sufficieiit caase fbr tlie delay m filjhig tlie appeaL Aeeordingly, M(C)P No. 1430/2006 is allowed aad ttee del^r ia filiTig fhe appeal is hereby coiidoned, Leanied comisel for fhe parties are also heard pa adaaadiasio^ The appeU^iits, unfortuttate pareirts axid ^^^^ deceased-Subhash Dubey, have filed fhis a^eal fo^^ of compensation awaided ia Claim Case Np. 85/2005 bytheS* Additkmal Motor Accidents Clauns Tnbuaal (FT<^, Bilaspur (CG)i vide award dated 1.3.2006. The appeUatits/claimaats fited a daim petitfa^ ^^aa^te Seetion 166 of fhe Motor ^hicles Act, claia^ Rs.26,88,000/- for the death of deceased" Siiblaas IB@toi®^gto motor accident, whicti took place oa 10.3,^0(N- i?^^ Hoiida xaotorcycle of tfae deceased was dasht^ v::::". :^'"'' Bus beamig registration No,CG 10A 352^ oai a^c^i^Ac^i^iBb^^^^^^ negUgent dx^vmg of fhe said Bus by ite driver, ^h^ appellai^ :.^ '^-. ^ ' '^ ^ ^ y MAC 76/2006 ^ pleaded fhat tlie deceased was a^d about 26 ^ara.^e^^w^^ §^^^^^^ ^ Engmeer aod was earmiigRs.6000/- permoath, f The Tribunal, on a close scrutmy oftheevideaceJte^b^^ parties, deteiiniaed fhat^ ia fect^ the decease^^ w^ Engmeer as he had not passed the examiaation However, fhc Tribuxial heM that fhe decesused was ^^i^^ Supervisor ia a Goncem aod was eai^auxg^ R Tribuxial assessed inoiifhly iacome of tl^ deeeased at^^^^^R^ ^••^.'^ The Tribuixal deducted l/3rd towai^s pCTSOSi^ deceased and the dependeixcy of fhe app^Has^ was^^i^^ Rs.2400/- per month aad Rs.28,800/- per annum. 'I^a'i^ applied fhe multipHler of 11 to fhe said aiixiual^^^ d^ ,;^.,....^,..y.:.:^..-..| Rs.28,800/- and fbe compensation was worteed oiit ^^^^^^^^^ Rs.3,16,800/-. Tfae Tribunal also awmded Rs.55»pQQ/» undei^ ofher heads aad a total 3W[& <>S f^.3/71,SQf^/-^ compensation to the appeUants fbr li^ dc^tto of Subl^ fhe lootor accideiit, The Tribiiaal also awaided iiite^ oxi fhe saM amxjunt ofcompettsatioii. . ^ Shri Ravish Venaa, leanied coiinsel appemdi^g ^ the appeUaats argues fhat fhe Tribunal assessed a 1<^ a low compensation h^ beexi awai^ed to tte Wc are unable to accept fhe said argim3^3Qts^^^a^ SIiriVeroaa, Though tihe appcJlaiits claimed that ^e- d^ workmg as a Sub Engineer and wa^ eai^iia^ Rs^.^ ^•'^'v but ixo reliable evidence ia fhis regaidwas ]te<^^f^ The Tribimal, on close scrutfccy of fhe e^^ei^e ted ia^^^^ heM that fhe deceased was worid^g a& a Si^er^^ ')• earoiag Rs.120/- per day arid Rs,3600/- per moa^^ fixtd aoy iafirmity m the above J&aidmg recoixlc;^^^ Tribunal. MAC 76/2006 ^ So Jfar as tfae deductiQEion acx^oimt fi€]^ra^^ ea^^ coacenied, fhc Tribunal has beem qiute Mfcyeral to deduet<3(fity^3** ..'t-.:^^--,. towaids personal expenses of fhe deceased, i?(^3€roa^ l^ deduction woirid have gpt to fhe exteiit % as (be dee^Ks^ w^^^^^^^^^^^ bachelor, As far as miritiplier fe coneeraed, fhje^^^"^^ the xnultiplier of 11, Admittedfy^ appe|Ha33te No» 1 ai^ parcnts of fhe deceased aod ^>pellant No.3 was-e^^ the deces^ed. Appellaot No.l wasag^ afac)ut55 yeaTO^^^^^l^^ !-':; ::%• |! No.2 was agpd about 46 years andappeUaxrt Np^i^^ 25years, therdEbre, fhey xmist be liaymgfheir own^^c^^ the facte aiid circumstaxices of fhe case^ iimltipa|er i^^ exeeeded fboDi 10. In fhe above facts and circumstaiaces crfffaeca^^ ^^^^^^ find any scope fbr eiihaacement of the aa2if>uaat 0f €!<>2apeii^^ alreajdy awarded to fhe appeUaiite. The appeal bas no merite, The saaae isliable ^ aad it is hereby dismissed summarity. •y^ ^ ^^"^ m^-^ ^- -^! suoita Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge