C.f- i.5 ^l -.^? ^s^ ?*i? /'.(•^' ...^ ...L%?^ ^' Sy' A..-'" x^" •f^l4- -?'t's^ w iersd Smt.. Shyam Bai, aged about 55 years, W/o Hemlal, Caste-Teli Hemial, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Keshavram Sahu, Caste-Teli, iesh Kumar, aged about 26 years, S/o Hemlal Sahu, Caste- Teli, Ail R/o Village-Kotrabhatha, Post Office-Surgi, Tahsil & District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ravi Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/'o Paras Burman, R/o in front of Chowk Chhawni Bhilai, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 2. Binder Singh, aged about 45 Housing Board, M.1.G. 2094 A-1, Near Cricket Ground, Bhilai, Tahsii & District-Durg (C.G.) I.C.I.C.I. Laimbard General insurance Company Limited, Station Road, Durg, Tahsii & District-Durg(C.G.) i3. As appeliant which has be monthly and ;n taken by multiplied by 8 period of 12 months the income of the deceased Tribunal as Rs. 3,750/- ;, which ought to have been "X . |u IQ |n 1-! IT Im w -jn i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ssnate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Shri Goutam the appeUants. Shrt Sourabh Company. M.A.<ClNo.271/2010 Smt. Shyam Bai and others. Versus Ravi Kumar ancS others. etrapal and Shri Avinash Chandra Sahu, counsel for Sharma, counsel for respondent No.S/lnsurance APPEAL UNDER SECTSON 173 OF MOTORVEHICUE ACT 1988 (2) This te an appeal fiied by the ciaimants seeWng enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs.2,83,CX)0/- awarded by the ctaims Tribunal. (3) Deceased Chaman La! Sahu, unmamed, aged about 29 years, v/as working as a Mason. According to the claimant he vras earnin$ IS ¥t-05 Rs.20CU- per dsy. The finding of the claims Tribunal is earnlng Rs.150/- per day and after taking 25 woridng days in for 8 months in a year and after deducting 1/3rd amount persona! expenses the annual dependency has bsep, 25..000/- per year. Upon applying a muttipiier of 13 the total loss of hSS as dependsncy incoms has bsen asses^d as Rs.2,6Q,OCM)/-. After awarding additionat amount of Rs.1Q,OCM3/- tov/ards damage to the motoreycte, Rs.5,000/- towards ioss of estate, Rs.2,000/- tewards funera! expenses and Rs.2,000/- to each of the claimaRts for Soss of love and affectton, the tota' sum awarded comes to Rs.2,83,(MX)/-. ii'?iS®^^^^^ SSaSW:Mg8SSBSB®lffiKBS;WSBBBSBSBS?dMCT^ -3- (4) Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that the ciaims Tribunat should have heid that the deceased was employed throi^h out the year and not for onty eight months. (5) True it is that ordinarity a person is employed throughout the year but since the deceased was an un-mamed pereon of 29 years and the claimants are the j^rents anci brother the claims Tribunal should have deducted 50% amount as personal expenses of the deceased and ccutd not have appiied muitiplier of more than 10 in vlew of the taw taid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the case of ancf a.10ther reported in A!R 2003 SC 4182. (6) tt is thus found that even sf it is cgteuiated on the basis that the deceased was earnmg through out the year and 50% is deducted towards his personai expenses and on applicstion of muttiplier of 10 the amount on the head of loss of dependency income would come to Rs.2,25,000/- which is stlft less than the sum awarded by the claims Tribunal on this head. (7) in ytew of the amount of cwnpensation dismissed. , there is no scope in this appsa! for enhancement of fails and 'fs Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge f^