. 1<J . SMf.*><^^ "? ''s!- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. f0 M^ /20C APPELLANTS: CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS: NON-CLAIMANTS 1.t ^^ ^1'' :^ 2. 1. Smt. Jamunadevi Thakur W/o Manbahai Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Near Bramhdeo Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District.Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versys Santudas Tandon S/o DeolatTandon aged about 40 years, R/o Village Garra, Post, Thana and Tahsit Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Phooluram Sahu, Jaishri Travels, New Bus Stand, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) ^ ^ ^ ^•^' ,y^'"^" v_Y^ ^-•.^y ^ ^^ o^'^ '^^'••'" 3. The Oriental India Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisiona! Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) ^ A.^' Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehide Act. 1994 XI-HC—78 ^T^T ^?T f<Tli<=b ^SH ^rTT^T sbNJoh T ^TPKfT ^HTsfl ~3~oEr ^ii^i<n^, ^tTt<44i<o, [®i<ni<H^< ^...Bci4.c........U3..2^... W^ 200^ -W^T TRW (llc<f^<^T) ^^w^r^^n^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Jystice N.K, 09.11.2009 Shri Aditya Khare, Advoc^te for the appellant. Shri Ravish Verma, Advo^ate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, <=hl^fd41^ 'STR^Jf ^* 'fe^ <p3l-^l< ^3tRWW^T Aaarwal ^dvocate appears on behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for re|spondent No. 3. Heard on IA No. 1 , applj^ation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration |the grounds raised inthe applicatjon and the submissior|s made by the counsel, 1 am satisfied that the counsel for| appellant has succeeded in explaining the delay caused in fj|ing this appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caus|ed in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Since the counsel for the matter, therefore, the appeal is h|eard finally. This is claimant's appi compensation against the awar parties are ready to argue the ^al for enhancement of the p dated 27.02.2008, passed by the Itlrd Additional Motor Accid^nt Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal) in Claim Cjase No.08/2007, whereby and whereuner an amount of Rs. 3 ,49,500/- has been awarded to the mother of deceased Ghans|iyam @ Raju Thakur, aged 27 years. XI-HC—78 W^T^FT'^IW '^8n W^T^RW 'S^F •^l<4l(rt^, ^tli-H4!(o, f:sfcll-M^< _.MA:<.......^..3.2-... ^^^ff^pw^" ~ " ~^"^^^^^^" "^ ^T^T Tra^? (T^t3s^?) The facts briefly stated a^ under: The clajmant's son namjely Ghanshyam @ Raju Thakur, on 29.12.2006 met with an acjcident with the Mini Bus bearing registration No. CG 04/ZA/O respondent No. 3 and pursuan1|to said accident he died. The clalmants, unfortuna|te mother and father of deceased Ghanshyam, by filing a claim betition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short '4ct,1988'), claimed Rs.14,50,000/- as compensation for death o The Tribunal, on a clos' 3,49,000/- as total compensati the said accident alongwith i from the date of application till appearing for the appellant is in the year 2006, the Trib i^l^f<ri<Ill 's^p^ff -^ 'fex^ '^R$R °^^TRfH3??^T 61, which was insured by the their son in the said accident against the Driver/Owner arjid Insurance Company of the vehicle. During pendency ofthje claim petition, the father died. scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material avaijat^le on record, awarded sum of Rs. in for the death of Ghanshaym in iterest @ 6 percent per annum :s payment. The only submission majde by Shri Khare, learned counsel hat since the accident took place inal ought to have taken into consideration the notional incojme at Rs. 36,000/- instead of Rs. 30,000/- and prayed that th recomputed accordingly. ^ income of deceased may be /. ^ -gt^^,, | "^"^^^. y @. ' -""'"% 5 ...^ / ^^['^T'ftFlW '^T31f^[s^NW Sahil B^ '-TRRW, '^fiF^PTS, [^<v1}tH4,< WTOr%'-!to"M^---^-s-'^---Wt200'7 ^ ^Fl^I<q?^ (^rfys^l) '^STI^R i?^l 3^? T Having heard the courjsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impip' this court, the award do not d^serve interference of this court for the reason that although in t^rms of several pronouncement of this court in various cases, th^ notional income, in cases where accident occurred in the yearl annum, but in the instant c^ expenses of deceased himsell calculate the amount of consideratjon at Rs. 36,000/- j percent towards personal exp^ 15, then the total amount woi adding further amount of Rs. sum awardable would come t<j GhS^Sd^l'11CT^f tf f&^ 1^?T ^3tRF[3n^? gned, in the considered opinion of 2006, would be Rs. 36,000/- per se the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 and also decjucted 1/3rd towards the personal , which is on higher side and ifwe compensation by taking into per annum, after deduction of 50 mses and by applying multiplier of ild come to Rs. 2,70,000/- and by 15,000/- in it on other head, total Rs. 2,85,000/-, which is less than the amount what has been aw^irded by the Tribunal. In the result, the ap^eal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^T^;I^ ^^ ^^IT^T^RT^T^—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1.00,000.