IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIGARH AT BILASPUR FC.G.1 M.AJC1 N0.^ /2010 Wji APPELLANTS: -^/^^-/w^^^^ t^^ .^%r ..^€^" '^ -^' \>^ ^^''A& 1'^'""y RESPONDENTS: 'i^^^ ^Kch 1 Vijay Kumar Shah, S/o Harihar Shah, aged about 40 years, Jeep owner, resident of Village Majhiaon, Police Station Majhiaon, District Gadhawa, [Jharkhand] 2 Ravi Kumar Ram, S/o Nagdev Ram, aged about 27 years, Occupation Driver, resident of Village Ranitali Thana Majhiaaon, Distt. Gadhawa [Jharkhand], VERSUS 1 Smt. Patiya Devi, W/o Late Ramjanam Ram , aged about 50 years, Occupation House Wife, resident of Nagar Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja [C.G.] 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Office Dharmshala Road, Daltalganj [Jharkhand] APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MATTER VEHICLE ACT \ .^,' mOH COURT OF CEiHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 366 of2010 APPELLANTS fNon appBcantsl RESPONDENTS apDBcant Vijay Kumar Shah & Another Veroiis Smt Patiya Devi & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. fSB: Hon*ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : ShriSiibhadiYaclav,Advocatefor11ieappellant. ORALCMEIDER (Passcd onJJ^day ofJidy, 2010) 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is a owner's a^peal directed against fhe awaa^ dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Additional Motor AcctdecS, Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Ramaiiujganj, Distt. Surguja (for short Ifae Tribunal), in Claim Case No. 10/2008, whereby and wfeereunder aa amoiuat ofRs. l,64,000/-has been award^l in favour ofclaiixiaiA as against fhe appellant exoneratuig the insuraace company from its liability to pay compensation. 3. Brieffacts oftfae case aie that, on 20.01.2008, Ramjairam Ram, aged aboirt 55 years (since deceased) was dashed by Jeep bearing registradon No. JB-03B-1917, owi^d by the appellaixt, as a r^sult ofwhichtfae (teceased sustained serioias iajiwas and<Med on spot 4. The claimant Le. widow of the deceas^ filed a claim petition clauning Rs. 16^0,000/- for tfae death of deeeased in the said accident, against the appellant/owner^ Driver and inswaiiee company. The Trilxmal, on a elose scrutiny oflfae evidence led by the pwties, the material available on the record, aiid submissions oflfae parties, awaixled Rs. l,64,(X)0/-as coiiq)ensation in favour offke elamiaxit holding Ihe appellaxit/owner of fhe vehicle Uable fw paymeirt of compensation and exonerated fhe insuraiice company fi'om its Uabilityta pay compensation onthe ground ofviolatioii ofterms of thepolicy. SIm Subhash Yadav, counsel for Ifae appellant w<mld suhimt tiaat only elaimant of the case was widow of the decesused, aaid therefore, the Tribunal has ©rredia idteAurtiag 1/3 oftfie amount of compensation towards personal expenses ofthe deceased. The Tribunal ou^rt to have deducted 50 percCTrt of tte amount of compensation towards personat eiyeiises offhe deeeased QS^AIhus, the award amount is shockmg^y on higher side wMeh deswves to be suitably reduced. I have heard Ifae counsel appearing for Ifae appellant, perused tfae award impugped aad records oflhe Trilwnal. Tlie claimant had pleaded Ae iiwome oftiie deeeased at Rs. 9000/- per m<Mitfa. As ^T petition, lh@ deceased was a iNeson. The Tribunal held that the cldanant failed to prove tiae faic<mie ofthe deceased at Rs. 9000/- per montti and by tsddng iticome oftfae deceased at Rs. 75/- per day i.e. Rs. 2250/- per month and Rs. 27»000/-pCT year imd after deducting l/3rd oftt towards personal e3q>enses ofthe deceased, assessed the loss ofdependency at Rs. 18,000/-peryear. Sahu 9. Whai income ofAe ^teceases is not ptGved by the claimant Iteen since Ihe accident took place in the year 2008, Ae Tribimal ougbt to have assessed Ifae montMy income oftiie deceased at fts. 3000/- i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per year as held by this court in various cases. Even if 50 percent is deducted fr<Mn fhe above amount, tiie loss of dependency would come to Rs. 18,000/- per year, tfaefefiore, the result would be <he smne. 10. In view of above, I do not find and vawvt 'm tiie suhnussian made by Shri Yadav. The award amount ofRs. 1,64,000/- passed by the Trihinal isjust smd reasonable. 11. The appeal, being devoid ofsubstance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. | Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge