N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M1SC.APPE,AL NOJQJWOF 2004 mwwara %Mh / APPELLANTS I 2 Sundri Bai, W/o Paharuram [1CLAIMANTS Kumarl’ Kanin, D/o.Paharuram, Aged’gbout 16 years. KumagjNira, D/0.Paharuram, Aged about 13 years, Aged about 48 years. f \éw ') Appellant through No.2 guardian 8L 3 are mother Minor (Appellant No. 1) 4 Raghunath, S/o. Paharuram, / Aged about 18 yearS. A11 are R/o. Sarangpur, Tahsil Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.., Radheshyam,S/0.Phool NON-APPLICANTS/ Singh, Aged about 4o years, R/o. Sarangpur, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Bhukhan Verma, ’S/o. / Chintaram, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Ghoghodabari, Tahsil Khairagar’h, District Rajnandgaon (C.GL) ’43. National Insurance Company 1", Limited, Branch Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) v/. x i’ MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 I ’ ”‘1‘. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR M.A. No. 1294 OF 2004 APPELLNTS Sundn' Bai aild others Vargas RESPQNDENTS Radh6shyam and others gnaw BENcx-b Hon. Shn‘ N.K. Agaxwal, J 9RESENT w - Shri Dashrath Prajapaft, Advocate, for app€11ants. Shn' Saurabh Shanna, Advocate for the rsspondmm No. 3. Non6 for respondents No. 1 and 2. aRDER {29—1-20 10} 1. This is clai‘memis’ appeal seeking enhalwement of compensation m the award dated 4—9-2004 passed by Adelifional Mote: Accident Claims Tribunal, VKhairagarh in Claim Case No. 13/2004 whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 2,39,500/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9%Iper annum Erom the date of appEcation'till its recovery in favour of the appeEants as against the respondents. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, axe as under:— pa On 16—6-2003, one Pahru son of Chatru Yadav met with an accident with Tractor and Trolley bearing registration No. CG O4-ZG-1119 and 1120 and Succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The appellants] claimants, unfortunate Widow and children of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briedy, ‘Act’) claiming Rs. 4,40,000/ - as compensation for the death of the deceased in the said accident. 5. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material plaCe and submissions made, held that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle; assessed income of ‘the deceased as Rs. 2500/— per month i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per annnm; after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased assessed yearly dependency as Rs. 20,000] -; on the basis of post mortem report, held the r age of the deceased at the Time of accident as 55 years and by applying multiplier of 11, awaxded Rs. 2,20,000/ — iowards loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 19,500/- towards other heads, thus awarded total sum of RSV 2,39,500/ — with interest at the rate of 9% pCI‘ annum. 6. Shri Dashrath Prajapati, learned counsel appearing fof the appellaats would submit that the multiplier applied is on lower side and thus the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. '7. Per contra, Shri Saurabh Shanna, lealned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would submit that the appellants have not adduced any defmite evidence with regani to the age of the deceased and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age into consideration as mentioned in the post mortem report. In the above facts situation, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the award passed by learned Tribunal. 8. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused r. the award impugned and record of the Tiibunal. _ 9. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/— per month, since no definite and clinching evidence has been adduced by the claimants regarding age of the deceased, learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 55 years as mentioned in the post mortem report, therefore, multiplier of 11 has rightly been applied, after deducting 1/3“ towards personal expenses, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed dependency as ,Rs. 20,000!- per annum and thus the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 2,20,000/- towards loss of dependency. The amount awarded on other heads seems to be on higher side. In View of the above, I do not hnd any substance in the appeal preferred by the appellant. The same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. a Sci/- N. K. Agarwal Judge r