'Swi r^wivft^, vn!\wi6, Rirti'yy ^Wdt **<!* WI, 200 an^yr D'ra? (ipf^5?i) an^i^fipw w sn^s sbiiqi 'renwofOT sn^i MjyONo. 903 of 2007 Appellant Insurer RESPONDENTS Claimants No.1 to 7 Driver Owner of Metadoor ^-———ffl-_. <*ll[<'l<i1-< ^1'Rff tf 'feist tfatjK '^aifin sii^i The Oriental Insurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Durg, Distt. Durg Vefsus Smt. Kamin Bai, widow of late Budhelal Patre, aged about 39 years Rajbhan Patre, aged about 19 years, s/o late Budhelal Patre Chandrabhan Patre, aged about 17 years & 6 months, s/o Late Budhelal Patre Suraj Bhan Patre, aged about 15 years, s/o late Budhe Lal Patre Shivbhan Patre, aged about 14 years, s/o late Budhelal Patre Ku. Shiv Kumar Patre, aged about 12 years, d/o Late Budhelal Patre Satbhan Patre, agedabout 10 years, son of late Budhelal Patre Respondents no.3 to 7 being minors, are representedthrough their natural guardian - mother respondent no.1 Smt. Kamin Bai - All are residents of viliage Pitora, P.S. Nandani, Durg City, Tahsil and Distt. Durg Basant Srivastava, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Kishan Lal Srwastava, resident of Shivpuri, Jamul Ward No.17, near Verma Kirana Stores, Distt. Durg (C.G) Vimlesh Kumar son of not known, resident of Telibandha, Raipur City, XI-HC—78 CT^je\ h'u'h '?Tan STT^T stt*iictt 3=5q' "4|^|<?i^l, yTfly'Ko, Rfcii'yy ,x\.±.:<».........ai.o^>.. ^Wvif *NI<* •wi. 200-7 SIIiBT 15PR (1pf^R*T) ^+fli^iT+ifed sn^r Misc. Appeal u/s 1 Appearance: Shri Asgar Ali, coun D.B: Hon'bleShit Hon'ble ShrJ L.C.Bhadoo, The appeUant In^ appeal u/s 173 ofthe ]V| by fhe Award dated lp. Accidents Claun Tribuital 415/2005 whereby fhe coinpensation of Rs. 4,0p, fastened liabllily on the and severaUy wifh iater) said amouut is not paid| interest witl be @ Rs.8.5( This appeal has t^ dependency has been as tnbuaal ought to have schedule-2 i,e., Rs. 1500C The brief facts of tbe about 3 p.m., Basant beariug Regn.No.M.P. ~——/~v__ *i^iili<h-< 'wrof tf.fe^t <Rii<$i< i; aifin •sin^i Tahsil and District. Raipur (C.G) 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 el for the appellant Justice L.C. Bhadoo & Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. J QRAL ORDER (10.08.2007) iuraace Coinpany has preferred this |otor Vehicles Act 1988 beiug aggrieved ).9.2006 passed by fhe AddL Motor (F.T.C) Dwg, m Claim Case No. lleamed Tribuual has awarded a total >,500/ - ia favour of fhe claimaats aad (nsurance compaay & fhe ownerjointly sst @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 21.1.2003. If the wifhin fhe prescribed period fhen fhe 0%. ;en preferred ou the ground that the i]sessed on higher side aad the learaed ^akea fhe notional income as per the tf/ - per aunuin.. tbe clahn. case are that on 22.6.2002 at jhrivastava was driviag the Metadoor 2|6 D 0944 aiul it dashed E^ainst a LS XI-HG—78 SII^T ?il R;-fi?h 'cTSfT 3ffR?T sfi*llct) 3^ET '^ltlKrt-4, Q-Jiy'Ko, fs|0iy^< MINdl *Mlch n-^<- ^o-^ •V^ 200 ~) an^TT'qa% (1pf5a5?i) TCIItK ^1?3 •CT^T -'!>• bedrin Rajdoot Motorcycle which, Budhelal sust^ was preferred by fhe It is mentioned ia tlil' Budhelal was workins Pandanya Naadani, month and fhe claimai late Budhelal. The Tribuual in oral evidence adduced I of Budhelal as Rs.l0( nionfh. Vide para 10, Rs.36,000/- aad by uicoine was assessecll i^rmg No.C.G. 07ZA/4025, as a result of it^iaed fatal iajuiies and died. The claim \1?idow and the chitdren of the deceased. i|e claim that at the tune of accident, as Supervisor iu Lime Stone Mines, ]pu% he was earEting Rs.4200/- per a'p.ts were dependents on the incoine of l/3Id fixiin the said ^utlr^ Budhelal on him'^ Apai(t Rs.3,84,000/-. expenses, Rs.2500/- consortiuui & Rs.20001 love aad affection hav(| 4,05,500/- has been a^ As per the evitj Supervisor ia the Lim| assessed by fhe side in any manuer. Ii earu Rs.100/- per d^ Tnbudal 41'4ld1ti1*1 -ITR^f ^f^c^ ^t^K ^;3(fiTT3II^I ^ara 8 of the award, ater considering tlie |by fhe claimants, assessed the eaniing p/- per day aad fhereby Rs.3000/- per the aanual iucoiue was assessed to be alppfymig the uiultiplier of 16, the total as Rs.5,76,000/- afid ater deducting ajnount, which was being spent by late dependency has beeu assessed to be tcom. that, Rs.2000/- for funeral loss of estate, Rs.5000/- for loss of -2000/-, on account of loss of father's also been awarded. Thus, m aU, Rs. ^arded. l.ence, the deceased was workmg as m|e Stone quany, therefore, the income as Rs.100/- per day is not on h^her the present days, even a labourer caa (y whereas Budhelal was workiug as ftr XI-HC—78 •Swf ^||<<id<<, aiifly'ie, Rirtiyy @) 3^vw R-fi+ TPH 3TT^T sb*1 '/- ^-; ^Wv\{ **1|cb .]n.;.A..;c.....oi.oJl. •WI. 2007 sn^r iraq; (13?f^?*i) t^IIWdfTO 311^1 ^ The appeal being aad the saine is herel limitation also. +l^i<rl1iftT1^i*i<nf ^'f^st <f<i^i< iTSJRPTSII^I Supervisor, therefore, v^e are of the considered optnion fhat the iucoine of Budhelal ast to be just, fair and r^ iuterference ia this app|eal, by this Court sessed t^^^ Rs.100/- per day, appeara ;asonable, which does not require any devoid ofmerit, is liable to be dismissed ^>y dismissed on merits as weU as on Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge