'^'-/'<"> :^. IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR (C.G.) M. A. TC1NO. - //J> 'i^ OF 2001 ^l^'^s^ii SKf APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 Durga Prasad Sharma S/o(Tejram ^8Af?Ulu^( Gupta^ Aged abput 32 years, VERSUS RESPONDENTS <> ?^^ ^:^5^ ^"^'"-.A^" ,^: Occupadon- Agriculture, R/o village- Rabo, Tahsil- Gharghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^. Lalkhan Kadari S/o Nur Khan Kadari, Caste- Musalman, aged about 39 years, Occupation- Bangles Seller, R/o Jhariyapali, Thana SE Tahsil- Gharghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) APPLICANT N0. 1 2. Mu. Rhoshan Bee W/o Lal Khan Kadari, Caste- Musalman, aged about 35 years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o Jhariyapali, Thana 65 Tahsil- Gharghora,. District Raigarh (C.G.) • APPLICANT N0. 2 _3. Indar Sai Yadav S/o Birbal Yadav [Motor Driver], Caste- Rawat, Occupation- Tractor Driver, R/o Khamhar, Thana & Tahsil- Lailunga, District Raigarh(C.G.) • NON-APPLICANTNO. 1 S-^-'i-i^'i fll^\ ^-^r' •!Ili Iftfi Y-~t- '• .••^"-r II £ ^ \!t h MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 1.72.000/- ^ :C—7S SI^T^ilftfR? Tfaff 3H^?t sp*lt<*) "^t^ 's^ '*<wwi, yxiww, wwvy. _^^.k.^?.;."^ 3ii^T'<ra^?( TOiiWdfeian^i SB: HON'BLESHRI JUSTICE N.Kl 28-10-2009 Shri S.K. Tiwari, coun^f Heard on I.A. No. 1, delayin filing theappeal. On due considerafionj appellant succeeded in explainin^ appeal. Therefore, I.A. 1 is allowjed Heard on admission. This is owner's app( 28-03-2007 passed in claim cas^ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal short 'Tribunal'), whereby Rs.7,24,000/- claimed by the awarded totai sum of Rs. 1,72,1 per annum from the date of appli^ of the claimants and against the ^l The brief facts stated That Tajdar @ Bhokc<lplo 30-05-2004 and pursuant to th^ accident, he died. The claimar(ts, the said child of 1 5 years pre^ qi!^4i'i 'WR^ff ^f fet3t' •(.r^^K ^r aifipT 3(1^1 AGARWAL iel for the appellant. apptication for condonation of am satisfied that counsel for the delay caused in filing the and delay is condoned. artd odo/ sal against the award dated s^ No. 9/2007 by IV Additional (F.T.C.), Raigarh (C.G.) (for whereunder as against cl^imant. Learned tribunal has along with interest @ 7.5% |;ation till it's payment in favour Ippellant. ks under: met with an accident on injury sustained in the said >, the unfortunate parents of Iferred a claim petition under Bila: Oate Vddr XI-HC—78 ~3^-*ll<llc1<<, ®Tll'M'|(o,fs|dl'(-llj,< ^M^...\^VS. sn^?[ 'tra?? ('^3^,^) an^T VI R-tii* wiia.n^ignN; Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle) against the ownerand driver of W\( The learned tribunal 15 years at the time of accide(it earning member, therefore by notional income ofRs.15,000/- II schedule of the Act, by deduct| expenses; by applying the II schedule, calculated the loss o|l adding a further sum of Rs.22|, expenses (Rs.2000), for loss of (Rs.10,000/- each) a total sunt awarded in favourof the claimanl hereiri. The only contention learned counsel for the appellan| child ofaged 15 years learned the compensation by applyingl passed an award which is deserves to be suitably reduced. 1 have heard learned also perused the award impugne^ cti(<l[!?iqh TTTO^ff ^f 'f^Sl' ^I^K ^SfRTO 311^1 Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') <e vehicle. hjslding age of the deceased as t; as the deceased was not [taking into consideration the )er annum as provided under |ng 1/3 of it towards personal rrlultiplier of 15 in terms of income at Rs.1,50,000/-. By ,000/- on account of funeral llove and affection to claimants of Rs.1,72,000/- has been (s and as against the appellant raised by Shri S.K. Tiwari, is that in a case of death of tifbunal has erred in calculating multiplier method and thus so^kingly on higher sidewhich |counsel for the appellant and ^ ^ XI-HC—78 'S^ •^Wf^, •&^\W\6, ^Wy S^'WT Ccpf3^tt) Sfi^I VI ft-<i+ wnan^rtpiw TOITW ^rfei aii^i 3 It is not in dispute ths Act the learned tribunal has right|y assessed the compensation. The question raised by the app^llant already been answered by the Malik and anotber Vs. Kiran P^l AIR SCW 4381 wherein in par^i has observed as under:- "16. Then, howdoes compensation for los: loss of dependency parents etc. in the student? Under the Act in case of a n income is notionally per annum. The applicable to claim Section 163A of tli Schedule provides applied in cases whq was less than 15 yea| but not exceeding ^ compensation is read with 168 of the| structured formula as] Schedule is not inexceptional cases.' flor payjabl <^l<-lt?1<iY'T ^T^' "^ 1^^ <F»f-^K <fr3TRpT3iii?r t in terms of II schedule of the in the instant appealhas upreme Court in case of R.K. and others reported in 2009 16 & 32 the Supreme Court one calculate pecuniary of future earnings and of the parents, grand case of non-working Second Schedule of the fsn earning person, his ^stimated at Rs.15,000/- second Schedule is 1 petitions filed under |e Act. The Second the multiplier to be jre the age of the victim |'s and between 15 years 'O years. Even when le under Section 166 Act, deviation from the provided in the Second permissible, except ordirlarily aii^tw I<-fi+ W13II^W»)W r ^5^'<(l'41(rt'Lf, WTTI'M'IS, lq<ni'Mll,< . M/^1- ^t. 11S~D/0 s^v '^ffi' ('yfg^f) ^ireT^itesn^i ^ prosftect clainhs "32. In view o|f hereinbefore, it is qui| regard to future be addressed by thej considering such in school, the reputal might be taken into present case, recoj children were good itl in a reasonably good future prospect woulip good and bright. Sint there is no yardstick future prospects of already noted, they vi|( studies, natural const be a bright future. Wadhwa (supra) and| the SupremeCourt r^ prospect as basis considered. Th< compensation seems to be background, facts ancj present case, and fol| Lata Wadhwa (supr (supra), we deem it| compensation of R< roughly half ofthe of pecuniary damages the future prospects paid to each claimanl towar(ls unjustiffed chi^4t-1 iTW^ff ^f fs^ <^f^.l< ^? afRiH sn^i discussion made te clear the claim with should have been Courts below. While child's performance ion of the school etc. [consideration. In the fds shows that the I studies and studying school. Naturally, their be presumed to be i|:e they were children, measure the loss of these children. But as k|ere performing well in i^quence supposed to In the case of Lata M.S. Grewal (supra), icognized such future and factor to be i^refore, denying future prospects Keeping this in circumstances ot' the |owing the decision in )) and MS. Grewal appropriate to grant ^.75,000/- (which is given on account !SD as compensation for t>f the children, to be within one month of r* ambunt Bilaspi Dated: Addres .^ f &.. ? ^. '.. "'sa s ^ ^^•^". ..^ '^^"""'"''-.^^ ''"SSSSif5' XI- XI-HC—78 'S'ST "i<l<11<tA|, ©•fll-H'16,fqoll+iy ;..ifr!.O..^o.;....ll.Q'./.0 3(1^1 'q^T ('yid'f'^) sn^i q;T f^-fi* ?r«n3nt?F?R^N? ^- 1 k- TOiiwdfta aitw '>' the date of this decision clarify that this amoitnt over and abovewhat the High Court." We would like to i.e. Rs.75,000/- is has been awarded by In the instant case Shri S. the appellant has utterly failed circumstances as observed in pa the Supreme Court; Moreove Supreme Couri: has further amount towards non-pecuniary d; Having taking into circumstances of the case and th in thecase as referred hereinabo intheappeal. In the result, the appeal liable to be and is hereby stage. (^i^<vl4^'i slW^f ^f ^^S ^+^K ^sifiman^r |K. Tiwari, learned counsel for |to point oyt any exceptional \a 16 of the above judgment of in the aforesaid case the cjbserved awarding adequate ^mage. co[isideration the facts and dictum of the Supreme Court 'l/e; 1 do not find any substance peing devoid of substance is dismjssed summarily at admission Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge ^^