EEéGFE CQU? QF¥$HH&?TE$R E? EE$§$§Q§€ R G§E §E¥E3EQ& BENQEE L dQRAf‘g: EQWELE SERI §§§jEEV GE?TA, $.J. %GN’ELE $§=€%E R§E§E$NA?% £§§?§3%§K§y ,5 Mm: Angeai No.13?3 a? 2%4 gaaeimms _ S aimaws u- KAppafao: S/o Sh‘fi < Narsimiaa Raa: , aged abaut 44 years $mt K Laxmi; Wk: Shri K Agparaoj agéd abcut 42 yeays Bah Rm Qtr Mega/1, RTS Comm; Raiiwa Caicw i ‘, Bi§asm1r x ’CG \ §EER$£§$ k) Sum} Kumar @3 Rak‘: 3m Late Shankar Laé Aged $9 yaars, Ric Q? No.435 Wireaess (Emmy {Railway coiony} ‘Farbahan -Tah Ex Distt 3%5aspur (CG) The (Mental mwrame Compamy Lit; Thmugh E‘gi‘WSéargaé {b’%anager, 8mm C}?fi::e, QpmSiie HEQh Cami, Tahsii am"; 9mm? Biiawur QCG} _I._§._ R§§ aiiéaiig I i 1T J i 1 t 1 ‘iégwiimeaw gamegE amké' $ecE§ea §?$ s3? Maia? ‘a’éhiek Aci Preiswt : $ht’i Gamam Khe‘irapaig acunsei f’erthe appeiiants. Shri Neeraj Pradhan; cGunseE fer respendent M13. @Rwg @gffk @mbg, gaim; The foEEGwing Grdgr cf ,fhe Court wa$ paS$ed by Ra§eev Qfugéiag CHE This is ciaimants: appeai far enhancemenk‘: a? i‘ne T t \ t I , 1 > comgaensazzm awamed my ma Addliioaal Mam Accadent Claims Tribunei; Biiaseur (fey Sheri ‘the Tribunai’) vide award e‘ated {33032604, easeed §n Ciaim Case N038/2094. :2} As against the cempensa‘éien of Re.2§,35,0@’0e dimmed by he appeiienisldaimants by fi§ing a daim petii‘mn under Seeiéon $56; 3f the Meta? Vehides Aci, f0; the dea‘th e?” €heir eon K Umesh in f'ne meter aecieen? on (31 .1 1 .20G3; fhe Tribunal awel'ded a teial eum of R$.€,8Q§00i- as compensai'ion emng with inierest @ 23% per mum fmm the daie of the fiiing 9f the ciaim peiition ”iii? ihe daie of §cfu%§ pagmenf.‘ ) The Tfibunai 0n a Ciose scruiiny af the entire evidema 18d ' I E*§1§i,§réas wstained by him Eh the mam? accident e’n CV: .‘i 1 .2063; the-- acciéené I accurred G‘Lée its rash and Ejegéigen't driving 0f the drivar (3'? ' the metgrcyciisi of the metercycie bearing registration CG-iO/BB~ 221; as the abeve metorcyo§e an ihe date of ‘izhe accidem was muree’ with the Oriemai insurance Sampam Limiied. the msurance Campany was iéabie ta pay compensatim te the £ iaimamtS. As ihe respondents have noi feed any appeai against me ward? u‘tne above findinge recorded by ihe Tnbuna§ have new ’rtained finaiity. The Tnbuna! éeeessed the inceme of the deceased at m“ reecribed in the Secend Schedule-under Sedien 16343 of ihe g0 e ¢ a)3r i0 n N“ 5,” »z.,. m<~ gv m#‘# l efare it heid ih‘at claimants’ sen K Limesh died on accmmt 6f thg C33T#" I Hv—w# s.‘§5,0&D/- per annun'g. en tneiibaeis 0f the neiionai meeme !e Aet, 1988. By deducting 1/3” of ihe inceme 0:” the tcwards hi$ persomai ‘dec;e&$ed ciep$m§ency was a$$essed at Rs.‘IG;OGC}/— u m m g muétiyjiéer of 1:63, {he compensatian wag werked 0w: t0 Rs.i ,60.GGQf-. > e mbwai mus. awarded camner‘saz an 0f %s 6G 00w m we ciaimants f0? Eng deaih m” ihgér ssn K Ume3h in ‘i‘ng mater accidwz. , 1m ‘fribunai fume? directed paymen‘k of iniere$i 0n i‘na abave amnum from iamsuni of camgensa‘iion cg‘ Rs.1,6£3.00(3f— @ 6% per i i E axpet'ISéS. : v. deaendency 0f Rs.’a0.SGGI- ma gmual ihe ciaiman’is , annbm. By per with the of ‘Ew fiiing of €1he céaim pemien iii! :the ‘fia‘ie aagmem. 5x vehement§y argued that the Tribxma! has; erred in awarcimg iew iccmeeneatien of Rs.1,60;OOO/- only, though i'ne Ciaiman‘és‘ eon deceased K ajrnesh was a bniuant atudeni am: baa a mg?“ ruiwe anti he wank)? have extended great suppari i0 the ciaimants in their atd aga r§ Neerai‘ Pradhan, ¥eamed couneei foi' reseeneent Neii 7:3 Sh ‘ Rhe Orieniai insurance Company Limiiecé on the ofner hand suppon‘ed ‘me awa’d and camenaea wat, as he daceaseij waq not hevna am! income o: we awn me comeensetion of Re 60 GOG/- ‘awagyded by ihe Tribune! Is we? and prom! compensanon in me { { i agts and Circumstances of the preseni cage 8?:/ ( I comgensanon to be awarded 0y tne Cams I Tribunais should ha If us: and amnér comnensation m tae facLs and Circumsiames or the i x Sm Ggutam Kéf‘“ pai the da€e of acma£ earnea? counsei for i’ne’ appei!ants in a meter accidentciaim ease what is importani is thai the @ caaa it should neiéher be a meager amoant 9f compensatiom nar EA bDHafiza. J _ 9h New; we Shel examine as to whether ihe comaensaiicn of s‘€:60,QOOI- awai'ded by the Tribuna§ iS just and proper c mpensaticm in ihe facts and circumstances o:f the presem case. ? :z Admiitediy, ciaimants’ sen K Umesh an é‘ne date of the lcqden‘z was student a? 15m standayd. Though ihe ciaimanis g awed than mew son usea t9 earn Rs3DQS/— r‘er mcmn by 'tthitéoris. no reliabie and ciinching evidence was ied in ihai behaif. he Tr§bunaL as such, was iefi with no other optionlbut to asseee éhe mcame of ihe deceased en the basis of the notionai inceme Diescribeci in the Seccmd Scheeuie uncier Seciisn i63—A cf .‘ne ww- I i K K; i Miami Vehicie Act; 198a. i iii) T e Tribunai has been quite iiberei in dedeciing oniy 1/3” 9f e income of ihe Geceased towards nis oersooai expenses, cu h e deouotion in that behaif couici have been i0 ihe exieni of «in ‘3} o we income of foe oeceesed in View of he reoeni o :um of ihe Apex Com in the case of $y‘eo3 Eeeheer Niemeo! end others Eée Mohemmeci Jemeei ami anoiheé‘ reported in i2fi§§§ Seeeeme Soon: gases 225, i 12, The muiiipiier of 1-.6 seiecied by the Tribunai ie aiso on ihe ’i i i ii i i n! er side consideringothe fact that ihe oiaimanis are parents of , _ the deceased and in View of toe drcturr‘ or the Aoex Count in he r i i i oa f Momcioai Qorporatror: of Greater Bombay es Laxmar Eyer and another, reported in £2€$Q3§ 8 $C¢-?3’E, wherein it was \ swm i hgid mat in these gases where ihe cia‘simants are’pareni5 of the I _ ‘ dgceagad, €he mu‘iipiier shouhi have? exceeggg ‘ l ' _ , ‘ 4‘”) For the feregemg reasons, we d0 no": find any saope for e ahancement 9f ihe compensatbn awerdad by the Tribunaa aiiher o accbunt sf the assessment of the imome of ih€ deceased er the craimania’ éependancy by ihe 'E‘ribuna! 0f the mwtiplier seiectad. 154;. The app€ai fiiea by ihe agpeEEénts/céaimanis far nhamemen: Q?” the campetisatian, iherefere‘ f§§és and is hereby i ( a dismiigsed. ‘ ‘ 1i5) No artier as i0 cests. ,‘/ v Sdl- Chief Justicei