c'(^ usA IN THE HIGH COURT' OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS OWNER M.A.(C.) No..S.?^ ../2010 1)(A) Smt Dashoda Bai W/o Late Prem Singh, aged about 60 years, c\°- 0^(^} Dau S/o Late Prem Singh, aged ^"' ^^ ^ about 36 years, ^ S?-v .^•r (C) Nandau S/o Late Prem Singh, ^^- :;-"a?'tr ^- ^" RESPONDENTS : aged about 27 years, AU are resident of Village Bhatli, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspiu- (C.G.) Versus Smt. Chanda Bai W/o Late Shiv Kuinar Yadav, aged about 29 years, Teklal S/o Late Shiv Kumar Yadav, Aged about 8 years, Kumari Sangeeta D/o Late Shiv Kuraar Yadav, aged about 5 years, Kumari Hulsi D/o Late Shiv Kumar Yadav, aged about 3 years, Bisouha S/o Chola Ram, aged about 67 years, Mankin Bai W/o Bisouha Yadav Aged about 62 years, Non-appellants No.2 to 4 are rainor through legal guardian Mother Chanda Bai W/o Late Shiv Kumar Yadav All are resident of Village Tharakpur, PoUce Station 85 Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4) ^ 5) r 7L Mela Ram @ Kedar S/o Dadu Ram Kurmi, aged about 37 years, Driver of alleged Tractor Bearing Registration No. CG-10ZC-4290 & Trolley No. CG-10ZC-4291 Resident of Village Tharakpur, Police Station & Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) MEMO OF MISCELLA4NEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACT 1988 AGAINST THE AWARD /ORDER DATED 3l7'll/2009 PASSED IN C.T.NO.^'T72008 BY THEWSECOND AD)DITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (F.T.C.l MUJNGELI DISTRICT BILASPUR '?? KM 9i^'. ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon^ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellants Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.378 of 2010 Smt. Dashoda Bai and others versus Respondents Smt. Chanda Bai and others Present: Shri Dheerendra Pandey, counsel forthe appellants. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th January, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the owner of the tractor and trolley chatlenging the award dated 30-11-2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Mungeli in Claim Case No.1 1/2008. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 27-12-2006, tractor bearing registration No.CG 10 ZG 4290 and trolley bearing registration No.CG 10 ZG 4291 was being driven by non-claimant Melaram. Deceased Shjvkumar Yadav was sitting in the trolley and was going with the tractor to load stones (Gitti) in the trolley. Melaram drove the tractor and trolley rashly and negligently near Maniyari River, as a result of which, Shivkumar Yadav fell down from the trolley and crushed under the wheel of the trolley. \ Shivkumar Yadav died on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Lormi. The claimants, i.e., wife, son, two daughters, father and mother of the deceased Shivkumar Yadav preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.19,50,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- in favour of the claimants fastening liability on the driver and the owner of the tractor and trolley to satisfy the award jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the widow of the deceased, namely, Chanda Bai has, inter alia, stated in the cross-examination that her husband Shivkumar Yadav died due to collapse of mine on him, but we have perused her cross- examination in which she has also stated that it is wrong that her husband had not died due to accident, he was going on tractor and fell down due to negligent driving, however, she is not an eye- witness and, therefore, her narration is of no use for the purpose of evidence. The relevant statement is of the eye-witness, namely, Ravi Kumar Yadav, AW-2, who has stated that he had seen the accident. Nothing comes out from his cross-examination and, therefore, it is proved that the deceased died due to the accident caused by the tractor and trolley. 6. With regard to the quantum, we have seen that the age of the deceased was 30 years. Number of dependent claimants is six. Monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.3,000/-, which annually comes to Rs.36,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has •^N ^ ^ deducted only 1/3rd towards personal living expenses of the deceased, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has observed in paragraph 30 of the judgment that where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4 . Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency very less in comparison to actual loss of dependency. However, there is no cross-objection. We are not inclined to interfere in the same. 7. In theresult, the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal