IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) N0. J 6 l\a OF2007 . APPELLANT : OWNER & DRIVER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS 1. ^ 2. ^y €t^:- 9 3. Tiharuram Sahu Son of Shri Jairam Sahu, aged about 50 years, Resident of Village Khairjhiti, Police Station Magarload, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). .; VERSUS Smt. Kamli Bai Widow of Late Nakul Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years; Narendra Kumar Sahu Son of Late Nakul Ram Sahu, aged about 15 years; . Ku. Lileshwari D/o Late Nakul Ram Sahu, aged about 13 years; <: 4. Omprakash Son of Late Nakul Ram Sahu,agedaboutl0years; -- ,; The respondent No.2 to 4 Minor, through GusLrdian at Liteain i.e. respondent No. 1 Kamli Bai. '•? ^ Mutana Bai Widow of Late Nandu Ram Sahu, aged abput 70 years; All the respondents resident of Village P^rasthathi, Tahsil Kurud, DistrictDhamtari (C.G.). ^-- APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN .173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 MSNfaiatSU.W-i'U'b ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. M.A. (ClNo.1040 of 2007 APPELLANT Tiharuram Sahu. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Kamli Bai and others. snn AIOK BaKsni and snn Kisni sanu, counsel tor appeliant. ORAL ORDER (21/06/2011) Following oral order Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. of the Court was passed by Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory deposit under Section 173(1) ofthe Motor Vehicle Act has already been deposited on 11t"Mareh.2008- (2) Heard. (3) The appellant is the owner of uninsured Hero Honda vehicle bearing • registration No. C.G.05A/ 4412. The said vehicte dashed deceased Nakul Ram who was aged about 38 years, a Raj Mistri (Mason), when the said Nakul Ram was going from village Parsaththi to Rajim at about 9 a.m. on 26/02/2005. (4) The claimants being the widow, sons & daughter and mother of the deceased preferred claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act to ciaim compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- togeffier with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant sybmits thatjhe Claims Tribunal committed a serious error by relying the statement of AW-"2 Jitendra Kumar Sahu who was not listed as an eye witness in the criminai case registered \ against the appellant. He would further submit that AW-1 Kamli Bai, the ^widow of the deceased is also not an eye witness, therefore the fact of accident by the vehicle belonging to appellant has not been proved. It is also submitted by the appellant that Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount as compensation. (6) The claimants have filed copies of the finai report, F.i.R., post mortem requisition and report etc. in whrch the police has cteariy found that vehicte belonging to appellant has caused the accident. AW-2 Jitendra Kumar has made an eye witness account of the accident. Merely because of the fact that in the police case the said Jitendra Kumar has not been listed as an eye witness, the credibility of his statement cannot be doubted if otherwise there is nothing in his cross examination to impeach his statement that he has witnessed the aecident. Thus, there is no illeoality in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle belonging to the appellant has caused the accident. (7) Wift regard to the quantum, it is to be seen that the Claims Tribunal has assessed age of the deceased as 45 yeare and in the absence of any proof regarding daily income the Claims Tribunal has assessed his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per year. After deducting 2/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 13 the loss of dependency income has been assessed at Rs.1,30.000/-. For funeral expenses sum of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded and for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc. a lump-sum amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded. The amount awarded on the head of funeral expenses is on lower side and no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate to the claimants, (8) In view of the above, there is no scope Tor reducing the amount of compensation awarded bythe Claims Tribunal. (9) The instant appeal has no substahce; it fails, and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )'-