:C—78 311^1 ?irf<-(i°h ~^l Sf^ ^i*lt^ •1'^ 3=5^ ^mv)^^ »fl1+f'iti, Riciiti^ .-.'^.....l6.10! 3^1 VSV (ljt!f'j«l<El) '?RIIWBf?g SH^ff HIGH COURT OF CHlIATTISGARHJBIL^iNJR Misc. Appeaf^ Appellants 1. 2. KBSPONDENTS 1 2 MISC. APPEAfi tNDE VEH Appearance: Shri Shrikumar Gupta, counsel for re^ Agra^al; ^f^I^'A'T ^il^^fy ^f f^^' '(fat^ci.l^ ^r ailgq aii^F 1061 of 2007 Godawan Bai, Wd/o Dukalu Ram Netam, aged about 49 years. Narad, s/o late Dukalu Ram, ag,e& about 27 yeara Bofh residents ofviUage Karetha, TahsU aad District Dhamtari (C.G) rersus Swam Siagh, s/o Baawari Lal, aged about 35 years Mahendra Siagh, s/o Sukhit Ram, both residents of Chokraaala, Raipur Tahsil aad District Raipur (C.G) The New India Insiiraace Conipany Limited, Thakkar Bhawan, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G). SECTION 173 OF MOTOR ;LES ACT Shri Vivek Rathore, cc^unsel for the appeUants. il, Sr. advocate with Shri A.K. >ondent no.3. DB: Hon'Me Shri L.C. Bhad Hoa'ble Shri SuaU K«ui»arSiaha, J, J 00 & C—78 3^q- ^|A||^A|, ?Sn{|u'l^, R|?»l<^^< VWcit *W4> .M.i4-<—--,\&^,l..,/5 ^...............................^......../._...,..,.^ sn^i '^T [<;•)(* ^^ 3TT^T sti+iicti an^?r v^v ('pf^^f) ^giwof^i sn^T •L.- qintn'fli ^wvS ^fvS <Ri|<4i< ^ stfgq siii^i ORDER (09.JL0.2007) L.C.Bhadoo, J, The appellants who ^re wife aad son of laf—Shri Dukalurain have preferred t^ris appeal u/s 173 of th motor Vehicles Act 1988 for enl^aaceuient of the coinpensation amount. At the tiine of accid ent DukalTiram was workiag as a daily wager in the irrigation 4epartment aad on the fatefiil day i.e. 09.7.2004 in tfae mnmiijig he went to his duly place by Cycle. WIule he was retumi^g to his horae in the eveniag, on ^o the square of Shaitti Colony, who was driving the offendiag fhe way when he reached Dhamtari, respoudent no.l vehicle No.CG-04-ZC-6107 rash aud negUgent maimer, dashed agamst fhe Cycle of pukalurani, as a result ofwhich, Dukaluram. sustamed injuri^s aad died spontaaeously. The matter was reported in the which, a crime No.412/200^ hereiu ffled a claim petition Tnbunal, Dhamtari, which wj Bofh the parties were aud afiter hearing counsel for| Dukaluram as Rs. 2147/- l/3rd as personal expens Police Station Dhamtari, upon was registered. The appeUauts before the Addl. Accident Clauns is registered as 546/2004. aUowed to adduce fheir evidence the parti.es, the leamed Tribiuial, based on fhe evidence of de|>artment, assessed fhe iacoine of per nionfh and after deductmg ;s, reinamiug l/3td part i.e., Rs.1400/- was considered a|s monthly dependency aad ttius -HC—78 3=c^ ^i^iiirf-ii, »fl1tiii(3,fa^i+fy an^nraw (Tpfg^T: 3]]^[ Vf WM ^sir sv^ sti^ict) ^ ^ TOiwa^t-SII^T 2>- assessed fhe annual depen^ency to fhe tune of Rs.16800/-. Furfher, the Tribunal held tl^at as per the post mortein report fhe age of the deceased Dii|caluram was 55 years, therefor&- the Tribunal applied the n^iiltiplier of 8 and awarded the coinpensation to the tune o that, Rs.5000/- was also a^yarded for funeral expenses and fhereby awarded a total Rs.1,39,400/- along-with mti Learaed counsel for t(ie appeUaat argued that at the tiine ofaccident, Diikaluram) of age aad he was below 55 11 ought to have been ap^ stateinent of witaesses of th4 shows that no niaterial has Vt deceased was below 55 yeal\ fa-ibunal has not awarded aa •wiferahiimaf'Ei.fe^'rfsngT ^•ajfsn aii^i Rs.1,34,4000/-. In addition to compensation to fhe tune of ;rest 6% p.a. had not coinpleted the 55 years years, fherefore, fhe iniiltiplier of llied. The certified copies of the claimauts are available witti the couasel for the appeUants a^id a perusal of fhese statemeuts :en produced before fhe Tribunal which establishes fhat at t)ie time of accident, the age of and 55 years of age has been assessed by the Tribuaal b^sed on fhe postinortein report. Tberefore, we are of fhe opfruon that correct age has been assessed by ttie Tribunal. Leamed counsel for Q^e appeUants submitted that the l' aoiount uuder fhe heads ofloss ofestate, love aad affection a^d loss ofconsortium. On the other haud, Sh4i SIirilnunar Agrawal, counsel for respoudent no.3 argued | that just and reasonable 5Sq' "t||<l|c4<q, aiTfl'H'lta, R|i7iltiy< *<l*<dl **1|ch 200 3n^?r VRK (Tpfg^r) 3Tl^r^1^rigT WTa<i<;<i aill* e> WCTRR'gfgCT an^r ^- coinpensation bas been award appeUaats are not entiUed for ai^ Haviag heard counsel for fact that under the heads of loi and loss of consortiiuu nothjn! we are of fhe considered entifled for Rs.5000/- under ea<] ofestate, Rs.5000/-for love and| the head ofloss ofconsordiim. Accordingly, fhe appeal the compensatiou amouut alref fhe appeUants shall be entitled| enhaaced amount shall cany filing of the application. | Accordingly, thfa appeal s|i Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ch(<i^*(li T:nT(^¥^f f^i" Tf^^n ^aiRpTsii^r (ed by the Tribunal aad the a4y enliaQceiuent. pie parties aad considering fhe is ofestate, love and afFection lias been awarded, ttierefore, Opi^uon that the appeUaats are ^h head i.e., Rs.5000/- for loss |affection and Rs.5000/- under partly aUowed. In addition to |ady awarded by tfae tribzinal, to Rs.15,000/- more and the 6% iaterest fixtm. the date of jtands finaUy disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. ^- -^' 'Q r