:—78 (y 3:ScT '<||<||<?»<<, ®Tf1y'l<o,tslcil'yy K^^) ^b^|°^ •'WI. 200 3II^?T'WRi (^f^S^W) 3n^F?ffl4-(w WIT 3Ht?I %triq? 5<ai^R -yfea 3iit?r cbi<<I<n<f1*t *irq<!'ff ^f.ts^ Tf^R^R ^T ^l'fflH •oll^l Aooeliants/ ^ i'^ i w>'•ayt^c> '^^l&tlll »6tllt»? ResDondents 1. Vish^! Verma, son of Chanden Verma. caste 2. 3. Lo;'n<hi 's"^5rl '•>hi<^>!tT '%'? v'i^''l>r<? 'Vifii^ wysiw ci5u»wua. ^A y'c?i.,ti^. Mon^shwar Verma, son of Vlshai Verma, csst^ Ku. agsa Both fathei Casit rft<?ij ^nju, D/o Visha! Verma, Caste Lodhi, dfris Polic Chat rss.ai Nag^ Shikd M.i.Q t'Ovi/r) Tl-iie (Appea! under Section 17; ^iS*! •r^fv^'tf^ nii^. •r Fk^ ^S'fW^V !/<•! 'T * *^> »?s'<>-*i"'^ ffi niin/^F i-viLini, <.iiys;uj oiJVui. VT y^cii^, ivii'iv!. -?i^/^ll^ •I O \*/-<k-^y^ ft.^sfi^/sr MUwuL i \/ ywui ^, ivisi ivi . minors are through legai guardian and Visha! Verma, son of Chanden Verma, Lodni, agecs aoout 'Si years, presentty ng at AmHdsehkaia, Post Pipariya, Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsi! District Rajnandgaon (CGV Khairbaarh. Bsforje death .'•esident of Gu!mohar Nagar, Katre) Layout, Tiranga Chowk, Nagpur. Versus- Geet^ram, son of Banoram, aged about 50 year^, rssident of Mukma, Tahsil Patna, Poiic^ Station Mukma, District Patna (Driver). dsn Kumar, son of Ramanand Singh, of A.M. Road, Motekachanci. and, at present resident of 54-B, ba. ler). Tambenagar, Bhagwan Road, Baramati, Pune (Maharashtra) Oriental Insurance Companv Limited, sgh Eranch Manager, the Orientai :3i insurBnce Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Shs^wsn Chowk, Ssrsmsti, Puns (Masfirashtra), Agent Code 1476 (Insurer). oftheMotorVehictesAct, 1988) lfB J-CTI ^|*)lrt''<, (S>Tfly'16, KKAWy tilNpll **1|cb WI, 200 sn^?T wra? (ipf^sigsT) sii^a.'Ri K;-ii=t> WII31RW it>*<l<=b >..^. TCIIW ^fw sii^r B : Hon'bie Shri L.C. Bhadoo &_Uon^b{e Shri Syni) Kumar Sinha. JJ 30-10-2007 Shri Rajnish Sirsgh Baghei, c< Heard on admission. The claimants have prsferrefci Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against tH Additionai Motor Accidents Claims in ciaim case Nos.75/2006 & 74/3 amount. The brief facts necessary fot 27-10-2006 in between 8.30 a.m. t' 'nameiv, Vishal Verma vvas goinQ ald 'chiid Dingeshwar, wife Dhan Bai (@J Honda motorcycie bearing reaistrat Amlideehkala, Police Station Chhuikt oftraffic jam. when Vishal Verma wat the driver of the truck bearing registf speed, in a rash & negliaent mannl Vlshal. as a result of which his ml namelv, Dhan Bai @. Dha! 3ai diedl Poitee Station Sakoii where crime under Sections 279 & 304-A of the| 'separate claim petitions were file<t! lRs.61,25.006/- & Rs.58,40,000/-. Inon-ciaimants and framing of issu^s [adduce evidence. After considering Iparties, iearned Tribunal reached to ( i*i'iif<'f'!fl-< iwyT'fffe'A <P»i<<i< ^•aifipTaii^r -'nse! for the appellants/claimants. this appeal under Section 173 of the |e award dated 25-7-2007 passed bv the TTribuna!, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, [006, for enhancement of compensation the disposal of this appeal are that on (o 8.40 a.m. the aopeliant/claimant No.1 Ing with his famiiv members i.e. the minor Dhal Bai and other children on his Hero fion No.i'V1H-31-BX-1866 from Nagpur to hadan. District Rajnandgaon. On account fe w^iting near Sakoii crossinci by that time fation No.NL-02-0-7520 came with a high fer and dashed sgainst the motorcvcie of Inor son nameiy, Dingeshwar & his wife on the spot. The matter was reported in INo.161/2006 for commission of offence indian Penal Code was registered. T\vo by the claimants herein bv claiming ^r fiiing the rspiy on behatf of respondents/ >, the parties were given opportunity to (he pleadinas & evidence adduced by the )he conclusion that the claimants have not Afttrfi ?T!^*f ?^T g? FS/59—8/2007 —30,000. -HC—78 75^ -^WW^, W^W'f6, fstrtiy^< (^ "ff^ 200 an^yr''isRR (iy(-^<<i) 311^1 ?iT ft-tR? Wff 3TR^ giiiR? ^tfI^R -yf?fl 3n^?T <=hl<tlCT<i1'T;qi*Rlft* ^I^Sl' <f^^|!( ^atfw^n^T been abie to estabiish the income cogent evidence. Therefore, the Rs.15,000/- per annum in respect Vishai and after deducting 1./3ro deceased by applying ihe multipiie] Rs.1,80.000/- as loss of dependenc\| of Dingeshwar (chiid) assessed Rs.' Moreover, in resoect of deatrt ioss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- Visha! Verma on account of lo4 aDpeilanyciaimants No.2 & 3 i.e. Rs. and Rs.2,000/- under the head ofl awarded an amount of Rs.2,12.000; agalnst fhe death of minor chiid O Tribuna! awarded an amount of Ri Rs.15,000/- on account of love & a| funera! exoenses. thereby the Tribuil appears that this amount i.e. Rt typograDhicai mistake whereas t!1 Tribunal in respect of death of mino) ,/Rs.1,50.000/- + Rs.15.000/- + Rs.2j 1|7 Learned counse! for the ai Tribunal in not believina the income We have perused paras considering the evidenceof Vishai to earn Rs.700/- per dav & Jagatrar(i earn Rs.700/- oer day, but no oroof tif iate Dhan Bai as claimed bv producing Tritiunal assessed the !oss of notional income W wife & son of appellant/claimant No.1 am|?unt as personai expenses of each of the ^ of 18 in respect of Dhan Bai assessed and by applying multiplier of 15 in respect 1.50.000/- towards loss. of Dhan Bai apart from Rs.1,80.000/- i.e. Was awarded to appellant'claimant No.1 fcs of consortium, Rs.10.000/- each to .EO.OOO/- underthe head of iove & affection funera! expenses, thereby the Tribunal f- against the death of Dhan Bai. whereas [Plngeshwar aoart from Rs.1.50.000/-. the t.5.000/- each to apDellants/ciaimants i.e. affection and Rs.2,000/- under the head of ba! awarded an amount of Rs.1.62.000/-. It ?^.1,62.000/- has been typed out as a |e total compensation awarded by the cftild Dingeshwar comes to Rs.1 ,67.000/- JOOO/-). >petlants argued that the finding of the bf Dhan Bai is pen/erse. & 18 of the impuaned award. After ^erma, who has stated that Dhan Bai used Verma also stated that Dhan Bai used to recsarding the said income was produced :e-78 ~3:S3i -liW^, ^•<S\W\6, ^</>Wy W^ 200 an^r-qira; (ipfg???) sn^i ?ff Rt-ii1'* vn 31RW siiiro e'wlsR 1yl^a 3n^?T 4>w[<'i<i1-f ^iiiraf ^Js<A <I«ii«;i< ^sfRw^n^r DHan by the ciaimants, therefore, learned not been able to establish that Dhsjn on the notiona! income of the dt Rs.15.000/- was assessed. Thisl reasonable as the claimants faileit! esta'olish the independent income nothing on record to show that other documentarv proof that shel Therefore. we do not find anvilleg^ Tribunal. As far as the auestion of been applied in respect of Dhan B< 15 has been applied in respect of| totality of the compensation awardle iearned Tribunal has not committeld multipiier of 15 in respect of minor For the foregoing reasons, 4 the finding of the Tribuna! and the infirmity in passing the impugned a^ ciaimants sha!l be entitied for death of minor chiid Dmgeshwar. in the result, the aDpea! faii herebv dismissed with the modificatl Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ie Tribunal has held that the claimants have Bai was earning the said income. Based sceased Dhan Bai, the yeariv income of finding of the Tribunal appears to be to produce coaent evidence in order to )f Dhan Bai as Rs.700/- per dav. There is Bai was a iiterate lady and there is no was runnmg genera! store or STD/PCO. aiity or infirmity in the award passed by the nluffipiier is concerned, muitipiier of 18 has li. which is on higher side and multiDlier of IDinaeshwar (minor chiid). Looking to the fed. we are of the considered ooinion that any iltegality or infirmity in applying the child Dinaeshwar, aged about 2 vears. |/e do not find any ground to interfere with 'ribunal has not committed any illegality or 1/ard exceot the tvpographicai misteke. The cortipensation of Rs.1,67.000/- in respect of >, same is liabie to be dismissed and it is lon indicated above. Ctlll Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r""