Cteimants Non-aDRijeants 1/*\ •l^i 1. Smt.Nandani1 Baj Wto. Satish Kumar -,£ged'3bouf^261years :•,'::.:,•'- :.: 2. jman • Rlya l^jmaci • D/o. Satish Kumar aaed ;abouf 3 years through Smt.Nandani Bai.w/o. Satish Kumar (Mother)",;. •.: \ •: .•,;•: . / 3. Smt.Je^t Kumsri 'W/o, Chanbhan Singh aged about 55 years 4, Chandbhan: Sinsh S/'o. Rameshwar Slngh; sged abouf 60 years; Ali are .Tanwar Caste, Residenee bf Khodari Rost Rawa Thana and Tatt Katghora Oistrict Ksrba (C.G.) Versus .::: . : : , •:. 1. . Bhaflwat Jaiswai S/Q. Laily ial Jaiswa! aged about 27 ^ars R^idehce of Si^/t'^ ^"it "^ y"i ti : i/'*-kT/^ii^/^t^-r!i fiitf*^1^1/^4' iLt^^^f'l^i' <^£iLycg i i!cSti<a r«aii.MiiUici U'i^i.ii^i Pk.L?i 2. iar: . .AiawaRi .:.'1. S/o./"--Lste Khemchaod Aiawani ResidenGe Qf Ambil^apur -RQad Katghora Tahai Katghora DistFJctKorb3(C.G.) 3. ,.:The: isntal irirougr! .Insatanefe .;Co.Ltd. :''::: .. :ft4anager,;-... Divjsjonai QTRce, Gitaniali Bhawan iviain Rbad Korba; Tahsii:and'@stnct .^^' Korba^C.Q.)',:':-;' ..:,.',. :'.^.' 4. ;ARil;:<Kuniar Atawani S/o; .Shri M.1-. .., , Aiawani Reslaence of New Sus stand . KatghOFs - Tahsij Katghora ' District <. : :,.:;: ! ,i<orba:(C.G.).,. :.'' .;:;.:.. :...11: :: ..'•. ' "{Misceiianeous Appeai under SeetiQrs.17Si(2) of ti :ft4oi0r,yshic!e.AGt), 'l^ti ftjsie ivi l'»°n?.i^ti jMsrE,U»i' i'hsmiB:^. f^ ST[a ini<"S riaSjf-i Present::.';. : . ! .,' '! ;:.r::.: ''''•''•':..' •:.^ ...: ; •;. 1 :'•11 Mr.P.K.TuisyanandMr.yivekRatiiQre.eoun^lfortheappeilanfc NonepresentforrespondenisNo.l, 2and4thoughser/ed; , :': ' Mr.A;X.Athiey,'BOunsel::roF:re^8ndent;'Nd^^ '/:: ^^ ^ ^^^,^^^.^^^^-^r^^^^^^^^L?^^s:^^^^^ F^^^~^ ft 2. rsoai noni .wr^y^a. .^^r^.g^c.t^. <3. 12. 1. By this appeai under Sectlcn 173 of tns Ivlotor VehiGie'Twt, appeilants have chsiienged legality arid propriety of the award dafed Q'^. ^. I/r^r^Q r'sisc^afs^*8 H\/ Afriifir'tnsE ^/ii^t'S'rir A'^/^irlisp's^ 'f^l'^I?Yio T'ri^tSE^sat /"f^r ietHi A.i^.'t.A.uui? M<35»;o^u UY MUUii.lWlitSi iV^Ui.vi ^<«f^i^te;ifl, ^isaiUjS? a UUUUeai iiLis Sri ii irii^' iv^''st!\ l^*'SjJf/^(^/i»'i'5 iri( Y^^i?^^ *l''->ic<-^'s n.Sj% 'tfQO/^l^^i-? tA»^/^r<^»^ifiin'^^i^^S*^ ^^iE^t )i^<"ii i liiJUiisai ^, r\.cSlyl «<Jit3 ;ia S-^ie3iSi i v/s^S?^ Evu'.s5^.S?/A.Ui-?f wii'Wi^SiJiy i^saiiic'^i iliUUiici has swarded totai compensation of Rs.5i3i,000/- along wlth 8% inferest per annum on aecount of urifortunate death of Satish Kumar (since sased), husband Qfappeiiant No.1 in motoraccident. dece As per pisadings of the parties, husband of appeliant No.1, father of appeliant No.2 ana son of'appeltants No.3 and 4 SaSish Kumar was working as iractor mechsnic. On 10.12.2006, he was coming to Katyhora from Jatga by bus bearing registration number C.G. 10A/91 06 driyen by respondent No.1, ownea by respoRtients No.2 .and 4 which was Insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 was driving the vshicie rashly and rtegilgeRtiy and csused death of Satish Kuma'r. His monthiy InGome •A'as Rs.6000/- from mechanicai work, he was aiso earning annua! income of Rs.25,000/- from agricultuFal work, his age was 28 years at the time of iFiCident. On the aforesaid ground, cialm for compensatioh of Rs.21,0,000/- was fiied under Section 166 or ihe Motor vshicis Act, 198i l^i j li^t^/^ii'^i'^l'^t Ou 4;iSif^i/« »At>*i44ii"^n <^Tf?',<~iMn<'t»^^ »'^<*ki^^tn^.''<>!'<>'^e'* ^l/^.'i •^tri!^! ^ hi'tt/' uy cgp|jR;iicaUii?. py ijiliiy Wiiitffai 53ic3t.Ki si^?i ii-j ; fcF£»p^iiU^il5? i^u. i Ri iw A. i •F/^.yrVTi'"slivf /^<-kt^t/«k^S •iln<"\ '"»ii^'t/^'"nrifr*tn' <?^iC^ r\^S.\ffs' '^U^'s/^t^rt 'i'^'tT *'^"t^y\r\r>^ifty^ Mr^ •I \?i iuiiiicafsyU^Sii^FUi.ii^cailcyGai.iUil.taiitjlsitgVS; c3Si^ys?u i.1icii, icSs|^waiMs;i Si. itU. ! not driving the vehicie rashiy and negligentiy. Respondent No.3 has contested the ciaim snd has aiiegedthat respondent No.1 has drlven the vehicisin vloSsfio", of cortdition of insurance; iherefore, respondsnt No,3 is not llabie for payment of compensatiQn. Respondent No.4 hasaiso denied frt^/s tti^s/^'^^irti^ r'in'^/4<^ ii^ ri^/^ ^{/»If^^ i^^i^'i'&i/^n fif^^-v v*,yf^\f<iif^fr^fvi 't'n rti^i^/^i^iii^i'j^j'/^'f liic CTiJ^yCBliijii siiea^lt? iii u ic WiwHii pfc;zii.»Uii. rtHt;t pi ^ViUls i^ CTti ^ppuli.usil^y us i»"i«^<'^ 4'<^ 4"i^>^ y^'tt^'E/^.if l/^'^frt/s/4 T'yii^i o^'i^sS ^•'^t^ 14 A if^s i^<*) <-»<^ 4tr^^''ii ^,rSin^y\£'iin^'*'*^'«.rty<f^ !i ii iy IU liiK iJtlKi^&, t^<%i U'c?U i liUUtis%i ) I(CTO cavyeziUSU l^l^i ^Uii Rs.5,31,000/- along with 8% inierest and held that respondent No.3 is nof iiabie for payment of compensation fhroagh him, he may recover ths amount from respondents No.1, 2 and 4 sfter paying the sams to appeilants. for the parties, perused t 3. Vve have heard iearned counsei impugned and record of the Tribunal. •^> ,^ \ - '3>- 4. Learned counsei for appeilsnts sybmlts that whiie awarding compsnsation J-3Td the Tribunai has deducted 1/3ro of tneome towards personal and iivlne expenses of deceased, howsver, considenng the n'umDer of depsndants who were four in number, the Tribunai was required to dMiuct oniy 1/4t 6f r/^e n^re'^! Sy^.i^/M^n/^ T/M*i'^i^/^^ •^^r^^r^'^i 'ir^^i Iiitii'</< /\x/t^<^t'^«'^/t^ /^f - ^iritf^.r^'^e^t^.f^ iif^/viiic i.uwcsiuo posavi irai (SiiM iiv.ii iy ^ApSsiiiaS;^ yi U^^^tSSs^i. ^/M tr»^''^t »!'rF^^sr<pi!l^?v ^ •rt^'^+4-^/< T'l^li^Lt ii^'i) i^-r*^ ·^^»^*^^^^<^/^/^ ^Dtt II^/^/MT^ ii3<;i iUiiiic?i s?uu!fli&5>iiiCTti.iic;tiiiJLjii(ai!jcio cai3i3^;5a^?^i^ !v¥V Learned and hss awarded low compensation. 7. On the pthsr hanid, learned counsei for respQn'dem No.3 opposes the appeal and submits that aithough cbmpensaffon has been awarded agaiRsf respondents No.1, 2 and 4 but the Tribunsl has taken liberai view in awarding compensation. , Respondents No.1,2 and 4 or even rsspondent No.3 ha'/e not preferres anyappeatagainsttheaward.evenf'neyhavenotfiiedanycross-objectiori, therefore, it is not dlspute3 that respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle rashly and neyiigentiy, owned by respondents No.2 and 4 which v/as insured wlth respondent No.3. Age of deceassd was 28 ysars and hls income assessed bythe TribuRal was Rs.3500/-per month. As regafds the question of deduction 6f 1/3rt instead of 1/4 pf JnGome towards personai sxpenses Gf deceased, 'iearried Tribunai has assessed the amount and deductsd towards persoD^I expenses and also awarded compensation on the totality ofsvidence. 8. As per case of appeilants, decsased Satish Kumar was working as tractqr mechanlc. Work of fraotor mechanic is a work of skiil and hard iabour which requires extra care to snabie ttts person for mechanic work that too pf retiairofiractorheavymachiRery.DeceasedwasnofworklnginanyofflGS or any piace of bysinsss of noFmai routine. Conssdering the hard job, deduction df 1/3 of income towaras persQnai expenses or deceased, sspeciaily coRSidering the dependency of appelianis No.3 and 4 oid mother snd fatber, the Triburss! has not committed sny iiiegaiity, even otherwise, the Tribunai has taken cara of sppeilant No.2 minor daughter of deceased and has directed for deposlflng ofRs.1.25,000/-fcsrhernamet!llherstt3lningtheageof21ye8rs. thi the present cass, age of appeitants N6.3 and 4 te 55 and @0 years. Deceased was working as tractor mechanie; he was requlre(j to exRenss •-f— more mor^y FatherthenAnessmpie.persQnatworkinginott any spsciai^skiil.'. .'.'..''.' !', : ;'•.•• ;• ••':'. -:: ,'' 1'. wifhout 10.!nthesecirGumstances,wedon6tfindanyiiJegai!tyin^dedUGtiono^ income towards personai expenses of aseeased. Conseqyentiy, the appeai beiRg deveid ofmerjt Is iiabie w fae stismi^^ it is hereby disrnissetf. Noorder as to sosts. .i ^JBBl->n :£*>—" Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge .•."Sd/-,,1-.1 R.N.Charidrakar Judge ^: s/- 1