§=3E£€§H (EWJR? 9F 8HEA?T§$$ARH i—“aT BILQSPUR QSVESEQN $E§§CH iifiékM §*§{EN‘BLE SHR? Rik-jEEV Gixg'ffa, Cm?“ & E‘%G?€§ELE S§J§R§ RAéKEGNA‘FH €§$&N§R&K&R, i i3’%§§cg .iixnggag Rea 1133 9% 2&4 §g§e§§aszi$ Appiécamg 1, Ramnare3h ShuKEa Sm Ramwaiap Shukia, age 5:3 years. 2. Smt. ‘Shyamwati Shukia wfo ‘ Ramnaresh Shukia‘ age 48 yams. Ea‘ih RIG Tarbahar Naka; Raiiway 03mm Biia3pur, Tahsii & Disirbt Silaspur (Chhaiiiagarh) $§§R$i§$ ??Eaz;§amjgm$ 1‘ Ram Ayodhya Singh 8/0 Mahit Singh Néa—a;§piicm&s ‘i’adav, age 4£3 year$ (Driver) Village Kha§iyal Sauth Mohalia, PSz Udant Nagar, Districi Bhaj‘gur Aara (Bihar) pVeegentiy Rig Krishna Nagar, behind (3.3% Offbe, Kama {Chhatiisgarh} 2. Subhash Sindhu s10 Krishna $indhu (Trawpcrter); RIG S.E.C.L.; KPJTO. Dipika Gevera Pmjeot, Truck Owaer QG. WEE-$921, Distt. Korba (0G) 3. The United- !nsurance Company, thmugh Branch Manager. Siadium Raad, TP. Nagar, Korba (0.6.) MigaQiiammug Qmmai w$ $13 a§ ih% Memr Vamsie Act $383 Prasant : Shri Ravindra Agrawai, oounsei for the appenants. 8m Aiok Gupta, caunse: for mspandent N92? Shri Bashrath Gupta. sounse§ for respondent N03. QR§§§§=E W35” Max’-embek, 2mm \ The fo§§0wing oyder m“ fne Court was passed by §€€aag§3av @uyia5 Q‘BE, The unfomaaie parent$ of deaeawd Ramkishore $hukia we ihe appgiSantsa bemrg us in ‘this appea? far enhancemgnt 0f the comwnsaéien awarded by i‘ns Additionai Momr Accident Cl&ims Té‘ibunai, Bi!aspur (far short ‘fne Tribuna?) vicie award daied 2diQ82fJG4; pa$sec§ in claim Cage No‘ 49/2003. 2) As againg ihe compensaiibn of Rs.’i8,40,000/~ daimed by the agpeiiants/ claimants, unfertunate pments 9f deceased Ramkishore SlhukSa, by f§ling a céaim petitian um‘er Semen 165 of the Mater Vehide‘s Act, §0r his death in the mator gccident on 23122002, the Tribune; awarded e tota¥ eum of Rs.1,70,GGC2/— ‘ae eompensation along wiih interest @ 6% per annum fmm ihe eaie 0f fiiifhg of the ciaim petitisn til! rhe date of aotuai eayment f5) The Tribune! on a chase scrutiny 0i the entire evidence ted before it heid that the ciaimente" eon Remkiehore Shukia dieci on eeceunt of t’ie injuries eusteined by him in the meter eoeident on 21.12.2OQ2; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving er the driver of the offending vehicie Truck bearing regietratien Nee Q.Gr‘i2/ZC—0921 ; e5 the above offending vehieie Trunk on the Clete m’ me accident wee’insured with the United indie insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company ccuid not eeta‘ciish any breach of the policy conditione, the tneurence Company wee iiabie to pay compensation to the cieimentei ,k. . J» v» ~ \ 4) As the respgndents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunat have now afiained finamy .5) The Tribunai asseseed the income of the deceased at R3.15,0C10f— per annum on the ba$i$ of the not'mna! inmme presmrifoed in ihe Second Ssheduie under Segtion 363% 0f the Maiar‘vlshicaes Act. By deducting 1J3“ 9f Rs.15,00G/- towards the pemonai expenses of the deceased, the claimams‘ dehendency wa$ assessed at Rs.10,000;’— per annum By muitipwing ihe annual dependency 0f Rs.10,000!‘ with the multiplier sf 17,, the compensation was worked out to RejiOiGQGfa The Tribunatg thus} awarded at totat eum of Fiat ,7i3,000,/- as compensation to the otaimants for the death of their eon Ramkishore Shukia tn the motor accioent. The Trihunat further dtrected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of R51. ,7C3,0QO/— @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the otaim petition tti! the date of aotuat payment 6} Shrt Ravindra AgraWat. teamed counsel for the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any eum towatds tanerat expenses and iose of estate; and in awarding iow oompeneation of Rst ,7Q,OQD/— only. 7",) Shti Dashrath Gupta, learned oounsei for respondent No.3, the United India insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of ‘ R$.1,?D.D{§01~ awarded by the Tribunai is ju$t and proper campensai'ian in the facts and o§rcurnstance$ (3f the pfesant saw. 8) Shri Aiok Gupta, learned counsei fer rewondent N02, Qwner of the offending \Iehide Truck alse supported the award. 9) in a motcr accident cEaim case, whai 3s important §s that; the comgensation to be awarded by the Courts/TrkunaE shomd be justvand proper compensation in the facts and circumsianses 9f ihe Gaga it should neither be a meager amount 0f campensation, nor a Bananza‘ 1Q) Ncw we 5han emmine as to wherher the cemeensation e? Rs.1,70,QOQ/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensatton in the facts and circumstances cf the present case ‘ t1) ‘ Considering the evidence ted by the claimants about the inoerne of the deceased; the fact that otaimant No.1 Ramnaresh Shukta on the date of the accident was working as Head-Constabte in R‘PF; the tact that ctaimant No2 $mt‘ $nyamwati Shukta, mother or“ the deceased was primarily dependent on ctaimant No.1, her hdsband Ramnaresh Shukta; the age of the deceased and the claimants; we are of the ohtnion that the compensation of Ps1 ,70,0GO!- awarded by the Tribune! towards toss of dependency cannot be’terrned ate-inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in that behatt. 12} Neverthetess, the Tribunal has certainly fatten into error in / not awarding any sum towards funeral expenses and toss of i estate. Wep therefore; award Rsi5,900/— towards tunerai i Sd/- RN. Chandrakaru Judge subbu expamés and Rs.5,000/- towards !oss of estate. A further $um 0f R$.1,0QO!- k: aim awardad tawards inteyesat on the abevg enhansed ameunt of Rs.10,00QI—. 1-3) The appeal filed by the appeHanis/ ciaimants far eryhancement of the compensation; iherefare, is aiiowed in gnari The ciaimants are awarded furiher sum 0f R31 1 ,OGQf- in additien ie-ihe sum of R31 ,70,QOO;’- awarded by the Tg'ibunal. ’34) Respendent No.3 the United indie. lnsmance Csmpany Limi?ec§ is granted thrae monfns’ time for depwiting ihe ioial mm 0f R31 1 ;OOD/- before the concerning Ciaims Tribonaio 15) ’ No order as to costs. ’ ,_..£> Sd/- \ Chief Justice 1 I / r/Ih ' ~f [r