L-'^-^ ---U-U-L-' ...^-.. ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURIC.G.) DMslonBe M.A (C)No. ^Or^2010 Hanuman Prasad Dhiwar, S/o APPELLANT NQN-APPLICANT ^:^ <^t"" .^y^ ....-"" ^•"" •; RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS ^"•^^ ^x "^?> ^t-r^ Ramkumar Dhiwar, aged about 25 years, R/o Ward No. 5, Purani Basti, Bhanpuri, Police Station Khamtarai, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) (Driver/ Owner offending vehicle No. C.G. 04/C-Q 5693) VERSUS 1. Smt. Anj'ani Thakur, W/o Late Poshan Singh Thakur, ; aged about 35 years. 2. Sourabh Sii^igh Thakur, S/o Poshan Singh Thakur, aged about 5 years. 3.. Ku. Sapna Singh Thakur, D/o Poshan Singh Thakur, aged about 5 years. Applicant No. 2 & 3 Minor Guardian, through - - Mother Smt. / Anjani Thakur, All residents of T.T.C. Colony Mana, Caiiip, Tahsil and Distt. Raip'ur (C.G.) rlf APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OP MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 .w?y:UB?;%&"^: 'W^iffi^SSBilPlliiii^lii ^i^^^^ii UIN®niitilK;iiiit; ii8»wisioiioii0faii0t i:ii1an|n»aiif31i'a^?0^i^^ %%^ .^fe^WIS'll::,:..;;'!^:.''''.'.,l.:1',^ ^®u^^te®^^.tii^i^iitt^^t'ii^ N^iAi-uNDi^^i^rtti^ils^tt^^^^^^ ':^|i|i|iigiigiaiilit.niliiitii^^;:1:'^ »j|iliilliii^||p|||ii^^ ':.l»riMi€OTtliE:I^Nril^iiBikt |aa|i|||||jNiit||ei(t3|eNw^i iii ^ ^i(R|ssi(iotB ^Per^^l.Ml^sllcly^ t. ^ '•;,^a|^al.,lf^l ^•i;fe^: ^||x|rt8|l^^|](clil^G|ati^^w::1MF(g^ ^BGc(tii|l(|<|ni^|NrtN)ftlrii^ appeltaOTt|i!| the appeal^ ^||e^ ^tec<)i|ltn9ly©c^ Hearc^oni^tmisisi^n. Themstantapp^il^beei^p^|rred agalnstfrthelawsu^l^^ A^dtttonil Mot;or^^|enfi?lati^^^^ <ht "Silglii shoi^|tlw^nburm^it^ad»i^aset^ Iri^feic^^tMi^^i^^ :deGeasec^^w^^anF.^e|||lo^ Departrn^ OnlS.I^ ^(^llai'^Qwner ^ljtl®^ |?-F'©^ft||tJr|ter •?"lt"ia«irl|iinGe/ Swiali^elfen'e Mana (Raipur) by his bicycle, the driver of TVS Star Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CQ-5693, coming from opposite side, dashed the appellant from front side, due to whteh he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 6. The claimants i.e. unfortunate widow and two minor children of the deceased preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,25,000/- for the death of thejr bread-earner in the said accident. 7. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the partjes, taken oontributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 percent holding that he had taken Hquor at the time of accident. The calculation of the income and compensation has been awarded according to pay slip of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd, the multiplier of 14 has been applied according to the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sarfa Verma (Smt.) And Others v. Defhi Transport Corporation andAnother1. 8. The total compensation calculated by the Tribunal came to Rs. 6,76,032/-, Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and other expenses, Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of estate, and thus, after making total of these amounts i.e. Rs. 7,06,032/-, the Tribunal deducted 25 percent of the same and arrived at 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 ,,:^"~ e? r\.:,. w. ZJ. conclusion that the daimants are entitled toget compensation of Rs. 5,29,524/-. 9. There Ss no suggestion on the medteal examination regardlng consumptjon of Alcohol by the deoeased at the time of accident, though, the appellant jn his statement has mentjoned orally that the deceased had consumed Alcohol and by referring a letter by the Potice concerned to the medical officer, it was observed that the deceased appeared to be under intoxicated, but regarding consumption of Ateohol or any type of intoxication has not been mentioned in the medical report though injury as well as postmortem reports, in which anti mortem injury was shown were given which have been perused byus. 10. Despite non availability of the evidence regarding intoxteation, the Tribunaj has deducted 25 percent of compensation holding contributory negligent on the part of deceased. Further, the Tribunal has deducted 25 percent not only from the amount of compensation but from the other heads also whteh was not appropriate on jts part, but, since the claimants have not filed any appeal and the instant appeal has been fited by the owner ofthe vehicle, we are not interfering in the same. 11. In view of above, the appeal has no force. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 7 ^ Sahu