i @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAsPuR (c.G.) M.A. No. ?34 12006 3mm Bemh‘ APPELLANTS K1 Smt Wd/b. SaJam B.alir.am Bal,-Sahu Aged about 43 years Tulsiram Sahu, aged 3,5 years Mahesh Sahu, aged 31 years Ved ’Prakash Sahu Aged about 27 years Appellant No.2 to 3 son of Late Baliram Sahu, ail residents of Village — Saddu, P.S. MoWapandari, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :31" Narad Prasad Nagwanshi S/o. Sonaram Nagwanshi Aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Jamuniya, P.S. Parasiya, District Chhindwada (M.P.) Office address : S.A.F. Third Battaiion Pradhan Aarakshak No.605, Camp - Saddu, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) S Director General ‘of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) g3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, (C-g-) Raipur JV w MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION“; 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 J @t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR MA. No.738 of 2036 APPELLANTS Smt. Sajam Bai & others Versus Narad Prasad Nagwanshi & others. APPEAL UNDER SE$TION 173, OF THE MOTQR VEHI¢LE$ ACT,1$£8 RESPONDENT$ (Single Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aqarwgl, J.) Present : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan,counselfcrthe appeila‘nts. shri None for GD. respondent Vaswani, No.1. Gové; Advocate with shn Sameer Behar, P.L. for respondents No.2 & 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10m day cf March, 2010) This is claimants’ appear seeking enhansement of compensation in the award dated 22-02-2006 in claim case No.38/2005 passed by Ninth Additional Motor Ancident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai‘) whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,38,000/~ has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants and as against respondenis along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its recovery.‘ 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: On 02-12-2004, Baliram Sahu (since deceased) met with an accident with Minibus (Swaraj Mazda) bearing registration No. QG. 03/ 2292 and sustained grievous injun‘es in the said accident. He was admitted in the hospital where he died on account of the injuties sustained by him in the said accident. 3. The claimants/appeitants i.e. unfortunate widow and three major sons of the deceased have claimed Rs.2,14,300/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the said accident against the respondents by filing a claim petition under Section 1v66_ of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). \. ‘ 4. Learned Tribunal on a clcse scrutiny w‘the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held respondent No.1 responsible for the said accident; assessed the income ofi the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.2,100/- per month as pieaded by the claimants, Iooking to the fact that appeilant No.1. wife was the only dependent, deducted 50% of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, looking to the age of the deceased as 56 years at die time of accident, applied multiplier of 8 and thus awarded total=sum of Rs.. al.08,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The leamed Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 5000i- towards loss of consortium, ‘ Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses and also Rs.2,500/- each to the appellants No.2,3 & 4 and thus‘awarded a total sum of Rs.1,38,000!~ as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its payment to the appellants for the death of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the appearing appellanE wouid submit that ' the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation which deserves to be suitably enhanced. 6. Per contra. leamed counsel for the respondents would submit that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and \ the same deserves to be upheld. 7. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and the record of the learned Tribunal. 8. The learned Tribunal has rightly held respondent No.1 responsible for the said accident; based on appreciation of evidence rightly assessed the income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants. Looking to the fact that appellants No. 2,3 & 4 are major sons and only the dependent would be appellant No.1, in the considered opinion of this Court. the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, looking to the age of the deceased as 56 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 8 has rightly been applied and thus the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs.1,08,000/~ as compensation towards loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further ‘\. a @L awarded Rs.10,000l- towards treatment expenses suffered by the deceased before his death and aiso rightly awarded Rs'.20.000I- en other heads. 9.. in view of foregoing. I do not hnd any scope for interference in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed; i Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge