XI-HC—78 3^T "i)i<<irtAi, axny'Ks, (afc'ii'yy. 'WT?IT *NI<* SA.:.^J.;...i<!o;.J..03.t?. s^r 'vsfSK cyS^^si) (JT) sn^i ?n h-udr, w sn^i aiiiqi MISC. APPBAL APPEU-ANTS 1. la 2. Y£ Sibt. Mala Siagh, aged 24 years, w/o ife Saatosh Kuinar Siugh, r4sh Singh, ^ed 4 years, s/o late S^ntosh Kumar Siagh, 3. Si^it. Ramkuman Dcvi aged 55 yejars, M/o late Santosh Kumar Sijugh 4. U^karsh Siagh, aged 2 aionths, d/o la^e Santosh Kuiaar Singh (AU ^bove residents of Siagh Kiraaa Store^ Shastd Nagar, Camp 1 Bhilai, P.S. (ph.hawam, Distt. Dm^ (C.G). yersus RESPONDENTS 1. Ab]| Praby KtunU D.B: HON'I HOH'BLE cbl^^f^l^ TTR?Tf 'ET fSC^ <(vil^,l< ^a.iRiion^r CLAIMt N0.1006/2007 'Jji^ram Nishad, aged years, s/o ajuram Nishad, r/o Ranmager, hjari, Distt. Dva-s (C-G) - Driver of 4ingVehicle No.CG-07-ZC-2937) Offendia 2. Ch^inendra Kumar Agrawal, s/o late M.R. ^warwal, r/o Station Sqare, Kumt|ari, (Owner of Offending Vehide No.C<^-07-ZC-2937) 3. |Regional Manager, New India [Insuraace Co., Thakker |Chambers, Opposite Project lAutoinobiles, Power House, Bhilai, [Distt. Durg (Inlsiirance Coinpany ofTruck NOJC.G.07/ZC/2937, PoUcy No[45900/31/05/01884) BLBlSHRI L.C. BHADOO, J, & ^HRI SXJNIL KUMAR 8INHA,_J. ,,-^s^^y. .XI-HC—78 sn^r^il^iR? ^^ 3T[^?T ^.mcf) •-.^ 'Swf ri)i-ijii?i<t|, a'Tfl^'Ks, Ki<?>iyy. . YI-Pt-L /DT.i. •tWW **1J* an^?r 'v^a (^S-y^) 'roiRR'Hf^raTi^i -T-- OttAL ORDER L.C.Bhadoo. J, coitdsel Dtu^ SItri Anurag Jha, Heard on adinission. The claimauts have Motor Vehicles Act 1988 £t amouut being aggrieved by Accident Claims Tribunal, The learaed Tribunal loss of dependency to the applyiug a iniiltiplier of 16j loss of dependency, Rs.30,0); aad affection, raeutal pam Rs.2000/- has been awarde^ tribunal has grauted a coinp|i The leamed counsell leamed Tribunal has asse^i deceased Santosh Kumar Si(i to eam Rs.7200/- per assessed the daUy iacoiue t^ inonfti. He also subinitted lookmg to the a^e of the d^( been appUed. He further suji Til^'^l'T ^w^ ^^^ 1;RiR^I< '^afRwsD^t 8.09.2007) for the appeUaat. |>referred tbia appeal u/s 173 of the |)r enhanceiaent of fhe coinpensation [the award passed by the Addl, Motor ^ig, iaClaimCaseNo. 149/2006. dde impugned award has assessed fhe |tune of Rs.32,000/- per year and by Rs.5,12,000/- has been assessed as p0/- has been awarded for loss of love |and suffering, loss of consortium aad for fuueral expenses. Thus, ia aU the ^snsation ofRs.5,44,000/-. for the appellants argued fhat the Ised fhe iaconie on lower side as the [igh was workiug as welder and he used whereas the leamed Tribuaal has be Rs.160/- that too for 25 days ia a a wrong inultiplier has been applied; sceased inultiplier of 17 ought to have )mitted that for loss ofcousortn-uu, love moiath tltat pr'-'— .XI-HC—78 SIT^T W R-fi'h wn sii^r sti^ich 7wf "i)l<Mlci<<, CS'xlltl'KS, Rlrtiyy _..^:.!?'..<;:........'..o...'?..t°. sn^r 'VI^K (ifcit-j^ify) TOiiWHfersn^T -•!>• bcbth & affection, pain and sufferijaj wluch is also on lower side. Having heard leame^ perused the award. In Para 18, the leamep. of the claiinants reganling i^ic the co-worker of deceased Nishad has stated that Coinpaay, Urla as welders used to earu about Rs. 160/-| produced by the claimant| presence of Santosh Kumar| days, whereas iu the inon^h tnonfh of Feb. 23 days. fhat her husbaad used to ge) salaiy for the days he vsef^ Gulab Nishad. She has aud other hoUdays her the above evidence, the Kumar used to work for 25 As far as fhe ai^uinei|it that he used to work by fhe Tribunal. In the Kumar uamely Mala Singh work overtime, inore over, is not a regular work, fh) furtber husbland tribtmal cfays overtintie i]|rst Uas flje cbl'tll<'l4lT1 TTFI^f ^1^11^ ^R^.l< ^aTfimsn^i g, oidy Rs.30,000/ - has been awarded counsel for the appellaut, we have Thelwife Tribunal has discussed fhc evidence iticome of the deceased ia which one of Saatosb Kumar namely Ramgulab of them were working in B.E.C. tinder Shiv Sharan, a confractor, they per day. Agaia ia para 20, the records have been discussed ia wluch the |ia the nionfh ofJanuary 2006 was 25 of March was 19 days and ia fhe of deceased Mala Siugh has Stated ;); fhe salary daity and he used to get fhe to work, as has been stated by Rain stated that on the weekly holidays was not goiag for work. Iii view of has rightity assessed fhat Santosh onfy ia a nionth. of learued couusel for ffae appellant is conceraed, that has been rejected iastance, fhe wife of ihe Santosh not stated auythiag fbat he used to over time work is such a work which /.-' srefore, tbe tribiuial has r^htty not gr— XI-HC—78 3ssr ^iMiriAi, 0Tfly4i<s, Rt0iyy. <^!Hc11 *NI* 3(R?f ?n [c;-li+. ^sn sn^i^RN? .•^ t-[. Pi- C-; VO'Sb 3IT^?T 1RW (4<il('j,«<<ff) •WI. 200-?- 'S^IIW ^TCd 311^1 tc regufar TriUunal ncit considered fhe saine as after deducting 1/3 expensj Rs.32,000/- has been tak^ dependency, thereby the dependency as Rs.5,12,000/ As far as the question ftie award shows that no Kum.ar was raised before fh4 the luedical papers reached t<^ aged about 37 years, fherefoi)e On that count also we do conclusion or findiag of the| rigbtly awanled Rs.5,12,1 annum.. Now coiiiiug to the appeUaut that only Rs.30,1 suffermg, loss of cousortmi4 lower side. Haviag considerejl Rs.30,000/- awarded by fh^ to be just and reasonable lower side. The Tribunal in all ha^ coiupensation which caanot) conipensation is just and ground for iaterference ia fhej qiFlfOT^ 'WRTf iffSVt <fat<;l< ^; siRct •sfii^i income of fhe deceased. Therefore, ;s on the victun himself, rematamg ;n iato account as yearly loss of has worked out the total loss of ^, which is also just aud reasoiiabk. ^)f m.ultiplier is conceraed, a perusal of (^ispute regardiag fhe s^e of Saatosh Tribunal and the Tnbiuial based on the conclusion fbat the deceased was ;, a inultiplier of 16 has toeen applied. find any infirmity or iUegality in fhe tribunal, therefore, the tribunal has '- along-with iuterest @ 6% per ,00j0/ arg|um.ents 0(|)0/ of fhe leamed counsel for fhe '- has been awarded for paui aad and love aud affection, which is on the status ofthe famify ofthe victiia, tribunal under above heads appears it caunot be said that it is on the afad awarded Rs.5,44,000/- as amoimt of Ibe said to be on the lower side. Tfae res(soiiable, ftierefore, we do not fiiid aay asiranl bffhe tribunal. XI-HC—78 75^ •^i*ii<7»<i,($Tfly'i(5, (sfrti'yy. ^•A-L- 1 &'<>(, sn^?r ^13% (i$a!f''p?ti: sn^i ^i fc;-ii+, TOT sn^r sti*iiqi wnwCTfer 311^1 s- cftiAti<r3^^ TiTO^f '^^^sl' <^n-^t< ^sffimsii^r ^.£- Tlie appeal is liable to| inotion stage itself. be dismissed and it is dismissed at the Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge :""1