m_^> ~?5T -<<ww^, wdww, F^<r\wy. 3lA?I ''R^i' (1clt38«i^) 311^1 ^I R;-fi«b tW ^H^T 9tt*1)<!h ^NauNBNlli 'RaiWdfss SII^T KE6H COURT OF CHHATtilS6ARH AT KLASPUR NVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIRfeNDRA AUSHRA & HON'BLE Mft. T.P. tM<«MA. JJ M.A. tdl No.9«/08 Appellants Claimants Vs ftespondents 1. Sh br 6t»<l[<'l4l*1 *iWW\ ^f f^'<t X^lt$l< *'3TRm3n$5T 1. So^tau Ram alias Buddu, Aged about 50|years, Cdste-Keuwt. 2. Ra(n Kunwar, W/o Soncu Ram, aged ab^ut 45 yrs. Both |are R/o Viltage-Bhaistara, Post Offic^ Bhaistara, Police Station Akalt^ro, t>istt- Janjgir-Chompu (C.6.) v Nath Prasad, S/o Sukar Mahto, Ag^d about 36 Yrs. Occupotion- ver, R/o Mankukahi, Post-Hdudar Na^ar, &istt.-Palamu (Jharkhand), Pr^sent Address- Mandi Road, Ramal Ch^il, Akaltara, bistl-. JanJgir-Champa (C^) (&REVER) 2. Awjadesh bewangan, 5/o Phirangi t)e|i»angan, Aged abouT39 yrs, R/o Shfvrlnarayan ftood, Akaltara, Wstt. Joa|iJgir-Champa (C6) (01VNER) 3. Un|ted India Insurance Company Lintited, Branch Offlce-STadium R<+d, T.P. Nagar, Korba (C.6.) CEt*|SURER) Present: Mr. P.K. Patel, Advoccrt-e for the apjfellants. ?IRl^T^t4 r, TP/ ~-/ L'S/197—3/2008—40,000. \: \^A.^ -F ~i> y ^' ^ ^s^" /^ £s<^ XI-HG—78 '3^T '^l'41d<4, ®tf1<H'l<o, fs|<y1l'MIJ,< 3?I^1 Ti5RT ('^qf3«i^tT) sn^T^iil^fN; 'Bsn'yTOi ^rHtsb ^wre ^fttf sni?r 'c^- ORAL Per Dhirendra ttishra. J: (17th Jjuly. 2008) This is claimants' appeal fo The claimants are the parents of on 30.1.2006 os a reaih- of motor registrat'ion number G611-ZB-0134 enhancement of the impugned award. ^jeceased namely Shatrughan, who died ^ehicle accident involving truck bearing driven by respondent No.l, owned by ^pondent No.3 ot the relevant time. respondent No.2, and insured byre^ The appeltants/claimants h4ve filed a clcim petition befwe the claiins tribunal stating therein ttjat their aon namely Shatrughan was working as 'Hammal' in Sanesh Rice No.S-Insurance Company filed its r claim petition and furt+ier denied| result of accident involving vehicle •qOTfeFih'CTreff •?fyet Tf^re ^aifipTsn^T UD6MENT Mill. On 30.1.2006 he was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle as a 'Hammal' u|hen the vehicle, which was being driven rashly and negligently, overhirn^d resulting in grievous injuries to Shatrghan. He was admitted in thej CTMS Hospital, Bitaspur where he died <m 24.7.2006. The cfaimants claimetl a sum of Rs.41,82,(XX}/- under various heads. Respondent No.l & 2 herei^i did not file their repty before the claims tribunal and they were projceeded ex-parte, whereas, respondent ^ply denying the allegations made in the the fact that Shotrughan died as a nsured by it. \: ? T XI-HG—78 'TST -lfl'Lllc1'll, Q-yl-H'16, fqcliyy sn^i w Vt-\ w a-n^i sti*i bb. 3fl^?T'(ra^ (' ^TOIT ^lftt! 3)1^1 -i- ^FlfeA tffERff ^ TS^i' ^3J{giI3<I^T The appellants examined Su^auram, Shyamsunder & t)r. Anil Thakur in support of their ctaim petition,j behalf of re^iondent No.3. The claims tribunal on duel record allowed the claim petition ofl • Shotrughan died m 24.7.^006 in the motor vehicle accident involving aforesaid truck; • age of Shatrughan was 22 yejars at the time of (Ecident; his monthly income was asse^ respondent No.3 has failed policy conditions and accordi assessed at Rs.1800/- per month personal expenditure of the dece. assessed at Rs.1200/- per month hawever, no witr»ss was examined on appreciatiCT) of evidence available on the ctaimonts with the findings thot; sed at Rs.1800/-; • the claimants incurred extjenditure at Rs.21,400/- towards his treat'ment; ^o prove that there was any breach of i|igly awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,600/- as compensdtion. For reaching the amount of awat[d, income of the deceased hos been jmd aff'er deducting 1/3 towards the |ised the toss of dependency has been (md thus selecting the muh-iplier of 13 compensation towards loss of depe^idency hos been assed <rt- Rs.1,87,200/-. Further adding Rs.21,400/- towarcjs expenditure of treotment, Rs.5000/- towards loss of income of theclai l^—-—ltf Inants as they were required to attend the patient in the hoqiital for six (nwiths, Rs.7,000/- as loss of income of ~\~: jij— Ss^Qt j 1 Y.^J '%..- '%StX,^'-'<?" XI-HG—78 ^5? "41<11<'1-4, ®tll<H<IS,fs(C-1l<4y,< a:i7^iTra^ (lici!'l^<IEr) sn^i ^i R-t'icd W f'T^I 3RR; aeti ftoshan/- 'FraraT'gfeisiR?! •I. ^ipfeft^ 'WTOf'? fS<SS ^lq^K ^? 3f!?R 3T!^S the deceased and Rs.5,OX)/- towar^ls tove and affection and thus, a total sum of fts.2,30,600/- has been awar^led. Learned counsel for the q>rielkmts aibmtts that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly inc{»me of the deceased at Rs.1,800/-, whereas, looking to the age of dec4ased, which was 22 years ot the time of accident, the tribunal ought to hcjve assessed the monthly income of the deceosed at Rs.3,000/-. However,. we are unabte to (jccept the above argument of learned counsel for the appellants as in the the income of deceased e* Rs.l.SO^/- per month and deducted only V3 towards his personal expenditures, are parents, the correct multip In the result, there is no| deserves to be disntissed and acco| admission st-age itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge instant case the tribunal has assessed Iwhereas, in the cases where ckiimant's ^er is 10 after deducting 50% as expendtture to be incurred by the d^ceased. In that view of the mater, ijie are of the considered opinion that the amount of cmnpensation assess4d by the tribunal is in accordance with law and the same does not call for ajiy interference. substance in the appeal, the same ^•dingly, it is hereby dismissed at the Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge