© XI-HC-78 <dwi rOIOIW«,»-nl<M<l<B, felril'Hy'i *11*101 ?SW sn^sr <ra^ (i?fg^5) ^200 sil^OTwR'fi* (rai3D^CTri)lf 8^iTI!R^fttT3Ilt?T M.A.(C)Np. 1565/2008 APPELLANTS 1. 2. Ghuraudl Manikpuj Agarbatti 39 years,j Both R/cj Bandhwapara, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil an|d District Bilaspur (CG) V^rsus RESPONDENTS 1. Santosh a] about 40 sl Sarkanda, 2. Smt Anch age not kr Office Tahi 3. Branch M Liruited, O CG VEHICLI D.B. Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra M Hon'ble Shri DiUo Raosah 26.11.2008 Shri AV Sridhar, counsel f Heard on IA No.Ol, appl filing this iniscellaneous appeal a delay of 64 days. On due consideradon of t appellant No.l Ghuraudas q>i<iln<i1'i •<i«)nl"tffalcl•<lui'K;i'( i&atRlHSII^ST a.s Manikpuri, s/o Late Mankudas -i aged about 44 years, w/o Ghuraudas Manikpuri aged about ias Babloo Patel s/o Firturam Patel aged ears, r/o Old Pump House, Sarkanda, PS Tahsil and District Bilaspur. ala Thakur w/o Pradeep Singh Thakur own r/o Rajendra Nagar Near Main Post iil and District Bilaspur CG anager, New India Insurance Company pposite Rajeev Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNtfER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR S ACT.1988 ishra, SB ib Deshmukh, JJ 3r the appellants. icadon for condonation of delay in a.s the same has been preferred with lie above applicadon and affidavit of Ma|nikpuri, we are satisfied that the 17 <dw| "qiqiWO, U-rf|<M<|<»,R|ril<Hy'< *ll*1ril ?SW 3II^?T qa?»(*jclij<l<^) W^ 200 an^iiwftqrai traTan^?Tri>*<i<b S^aTliR^ri%?T3lrt?T appellants have been able to e^ filing this appeal. Accordingly, Delay in filing the appeal is concj Also heard on admission. *I^Fd41'f *IWdT^'lst3 '<lult^ix i?3lf^T3n^?T tablish sufficient cause for delay in [Jte application (IA No.Ol) is allowed. loned. This is the claunants'-ajtipeal for enhancement against the award dated23rd June, 200^ passed in claim case No.09/08, whereby the learned First Additit>nal Motor Accident Clairas Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), Bipaspur has awarded a sum of Rs.3,21,500/- with interest at ^he rate of 6% per annum from the date of applicatiQn, as competisation for the death of their son Mangaldas, who died as a resLflt of motor accident on 26.12.2007 involving Truck No.CG-13/ZC-p459, driven by' respondent No.l, owned by respondent No.2 and relevant period. death of their son Mangaldas o Tribunal aUowed the claim petil occurred as a result of rash ar insured by respondent No.3 for the The claimants claimed coijipensation of Rs.14,14,000/- for the truck by respondent No.l, de(|;eased died in the above accident; breach of policy condition by re^ respondents are jointly and impugned award. Further, ass| h various heads. However, leamed |ion with a finding that the accident id negligent driving of the offending Ipondent No.2 is not proved; and the Iseverally liable for sadsfying the ^ssing the eaming capacity of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per rr(onth i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, F/^^ ''t i 1 '^w^,--^ '% %^/. as».-S':..r ..; ^TSET -qxiinq, y-rfl'H^id, Riril<Hy'< *ll*1ril ?SW an^srqg^ (*j^lj<i<d) ^200 3IT^?T!RI R'li* crai3ii^sT*»ii* <ni<i[Ta<Ilri iiinT'fts'd 'tluit^K ^ aiKl*i sn^v deducting l/3rd frora the ab()ve amount as the expenses the deceased would have incun-e(( on himself, had he been alive, assessed the dependency at deceased. Taking the age ofthe selecting multiplier of 13, a surr^ as loss of dependency. Apart fl expenses Rs.2,000/-, for loss of 8s affection Rs.5,000/-, has also| thus, a total sum of Rs.3,21,500| The only ground urged by assail the above award is that ttl 13 on the basis of age of appell| without considering the age of only 39 years old at the time appellants was taken into have been 15. We .have heard learnec admission. We are unable to accept counsel for the appellants. Sec^ 163A of the Motor Vehicles Actl the matters of award of comri claimed for the death of an unrrj Rs.24,000/- per annum on the appellants betcveen 50-52 years and ofRs.3,12,000/- has been awarded rom the above amount, for funeral sstate Rs.2,500/- and for loss oflove been awarded to the appellants and /- has been awarded. learned counsel for the appellants to ie Tribunal hasselected multiplier of ant No. l Ghuraudas as 50-52 years appellant No.2 Agarbatd, who was of accident. If average age of the L, the correct multiplier would consideration counsel for the appellants on ;he arguraents advanced by learned >nd schedule appended with Section 1988 are merely guiding factors in ensation. Where corapensadon is arried person and the claimants are ^x^^y '^'&a-.-sr?35'" ^s^-yi«irt«,t»-ri1ti<i<o,Rwit)y< TFRTT^IT^ ^200 3D^9T (Rffi ('jclijd.E;) 3II^?TipTR-li* (rai3II^?Tri)t<ich B^ITtR 'uBcf SK^S 4' nis parents, ttie possibility ol deceased once he gets niarriec assessing the corapensadon. T 'Biifcxili iiinV't fet3 xluii<;i< ^srf^TSH^CT rectuction in contnbution by the is also to be kept in mind while |ie compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the peci^niary benefits. The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is cjsrtainly on the higher side. The reduction ofonly l/3I& towards Ipersonal expenses ofthe deceased is also on the lower side. We are in the niatter of Municipal Cdflporation of Greater Boinbay Vs. Laxm.an lyer and another, r^ported in 2004 ACJ 53. In these circuinstances, we are of the <j ground available to the appellan| In the result, the appeal t] be dismissed at the admission s< Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge brtified in our view by the judgnient |onsidered opinion that there is no |;s for enhanceinent of the award. |eing devoid of substance deserves to [age itself and is hereby dismissed. sa/^ DaipRaosahebDeshmukh