^•^ ^!^ A^8 IN THE HIGH COURT OILJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M fC.G.) .f^No ^G^- /2006 ,y^ Ct^ <fe- APPELLANT : Serveswar Rath, S/o. Jagdish gs'slgwasfrtg Rath, resident of Mohantipara, W..N.-11, Bargarh, District - Bargarh (Orissa) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^ 1.4 Rajkumari, wife of late Pandu Ram Sande, aged about 30 years, <^2.c^ Minor - Ramkumar, son of late Panduram Sande, aged about 12 years ^-3.^7 Minor- Ramesh Kumar, son of late Panduram Sande, aged about 4 years 4. <-~> Minor-Meena Kumari, son of late Panduram Sande, aged about 8 years All resident of village Khurkhula, P.S. Bilaigarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) ^r 5. > No.2 t& 4 through natural guardian mother Rajkumari Sande Medi-Sati Ganpati, sonof Medi Sati Subbarao, resident , of P.S. Barhiguda, District- Sambalpur (Orissa) (Registered Owner) 61 Insurance Company (Unknown) Claim before the Tribunal Rs.30,41,OOO/- Awarded amount V^ifciaVok o^- ^PPCA^ Rs. 2,59,600/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR V E HICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS<iARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 562/2006 APPELLANT Serveswar Rath Versus RESPONDBNTS Rajkiimari and ofhers SB:- HON*BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDER (12-5-2011) 1. This is owners appeal against fhe award dated 30-8-2006 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balauda Bazar, in Claim Case No. 16/2003 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,59,600/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants holding appellant liable for its payment. 2. As against Rs. 30,41,000/- claiined by respondents No. 1 to 4 as compensation for the death of Panduram in the accident dated 13-4-2002 by Tractor bearing registration No. OSSD-0341 and troUey Nb^OR 17/7374 by filing claim petition under Section 163 of ^ie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led material placed and submissions made, after assessiag the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- per montti i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per annuoi, deducting 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of fhe deceased and by applying multiplier of 16 looking to the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,49,000/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. Leamed Tribunal after awarding fmlher ^f amount of Rs. 10,000/- on other heads, has awarded Rs. 2,59,000/- as compensation along wifh interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1-11-2004. 3. The only submission made by Shri Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant is that as per statement of P.W. 1 Rajkumad, fhe driver of fhe vehicle was some one else and not deceased Panduram, the above driver was not unpleaded as a party and therefore, for want of impleading the driver as a party/non-applicant ui the case, the claim petition is not maintainable and by overlooking the above fact, the award has been passed which deser^es to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, referring to para 4 of fhe written statement filed by fhe appeUant before fhe Tribunal, Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, woiild contend, the facts deceased Panduram was driver of the vehicle, drivmg said tractor at fhe time of accident and died due to the injuries sustained in fhe accident were not denied by the appellant. Factiun of accident, driving of the vehicle by Panduram were also not denied by him in his statement, therefore, the groiind raised is misconceived, contrary to record and deserves to be rejected and fhe award passed by the Tribiinal deserves to be upheld. 5. I have heard leamed coiinsel for the parties and penised the record offhe Tribunal. 6. A bare perusal of the claim petition, written statement filed by the appellant and evidence adduced in the case, would clearly reveal, tractor in question being driven by deceased Pandiiram at the time of traasportation of bricks tumed tmtle resultmg in his death. There is no iota of evidence suggesting Panduram was not driver or any other person was driver of the tractor. Further fhe appellant also failed tQ prove, fhe said tractor and trolley was unaufhorizedly taken away by deceased Panduram inasmuch as he admitted in his statement that at fhe y' .^^. ^'^""^. ^' 'fc.^. i :^^i^r ^ 8. time of accident, the ti'actor and troUey was transportmg his bricks from one place to anofher. In view of above, the plea raised by Shri Khetrapal is sans substance. The am.ount awarded is otherwise, just and proper. No ofher point has been raised. The appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge