IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.) MISC. APPEAL fO N0. 1/V7 OF 2011 APPELLANTS 1. -^/y/. ^/y^ ^y^' <4A ^\ ^ 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. <.-'""' Purnima Bai Mandavi, W/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 40 years, Caste Gond, Ku. Gayatri Bai Mandavi, D/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 18 years, Ku. Santri Mandavi, D/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 16 years, Ku. Padma Mandavi, D/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 13 years, Shankar Lal Mandavi, S/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 11 years, Ku. Soniya Mandavi, D/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 9 years, Ku. Laxmi Mandavi, D/o ' Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 7 years, Ku. Babli Mandavi, D/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, aged about 4 years, Appellant No. 3,4,5,6,7 & 8 are Minor through their next friend mother Purnima Bai, W/o Late Sadaram Mandavi, All are R/o Village Kundrupara, Balod, Police Station and Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS: 2. ^ VERSUS Premdas Sahu, S/o Latkhor Sahu, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Khuteri, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Manjeet Singh, S/o Suruj Singh, R/o Main Road, Paarrasgaon, Tahsil and District Bastar (C.G.) Through: Shri Ranjeet Singh, Quarter No. 3/A, Sector 10 Bhilai, Potice Station Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Registered Head Office Chennai—600014, Through: Branch Manager, Branch Office, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Tahsil and District Bastar (C.G.) and Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mahendra House, Kachahari Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Siyaram Sahu, S/o Shri G. Ram Sahu, R/o Nayapara, Balod, Police Station and Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Lakhan Lal Yogi, S/o Kheduram Yogi, R/o Mararpara Balod, Post Balod, Police Station and Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Registered Head Office 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai - 400001 Avam Branch Manager, Branch Office, Paarakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) and Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Thakkar Chamber, Power hlouse Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ^^' Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 7,60,000/- w^-' Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs. 4,58,000/- Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal : Rs. 2,90,000/- The appellants have re-assessed the claim value in the instant appeal on the basis of the evidence and the material available on the record as well as his income. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA.<QNo.ll7of2011 APPELLANTS : Pumima Bai Mandavi & others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Premdas Sahu & Others ^ APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT SB: Hon'ble Shri Justtce N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri UPS Sahu, Advocate fbr the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01.02.2011) 1. Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing theappeal. 2. On due consideration, I am satisfied that the counsel for appellants is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 23.08.2010, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 93/09, whereby an amount of Rs. 4,58,000/- has been awarded in favour ofthe claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment. 4. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 22.10.2008, Sadaram Mandavi (sinee deceased) while traveling w^^ ^ in Traetor bearing registration No. CG-04-ZQ-1026 along with other co-labourers, the said Tractor was dashed by the Tmck (Tanker) bearing registration No. CG-07-C-2805, as a result of which he succumbed to fhe injuries susteined in the said accident. 5. As against Rs. 7,60,000/- claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal, awarded total sum ofRs. 4,58,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs. 3500/- per month i.e. Rs. 42,000/- per annum; deducted 1/4 of it (i.e. Rs. 10,500/-) towards personal expenses ofthe deceased; looking to the age ofthe deceased as 42 years at the time ofaccident, applied multiplier of 14, assessed the amount ofcompensation at Rs. 4,41,000/- towards loss of dependency (31,500/- X 14 = 4,41,OOO/-) and further awarded Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5000/- for loss of pain and sufferance, Rs. 2,000/-for funeral expense and Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate, and thus awarded total sum ofRs. 4,58,000/-(4,41,000/-+17,000/-) in favour ofthe claimants againstthe respondents, 7. Shri Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for tiie appellants would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income ofthe deceased on lower side, and therefore, the amount of compensation needs enhancement. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the order impugned, ^s^^. ! ^-yA 1 g ^y—%^ '%.. ' ^..// '^ '^^/ "^..y 9. In case of agricultural labourer, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3500/- per month; looking to number of the claimants rightly deducted 1/4th of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and has rightly assessed the yeariy dependency at Rs. 31,500/- and after applying multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award ofcompensation in favour of the claimants, and in the considered opmion of this court, there is no scope of interference in the amount of compensation awarded by the leamed Tribunal. 10. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu