XI-HC-78 gwTToi<<i««,u-al<H<i&, Rittitiyt TPIcCT^m^ •••••••••••••••—•••••••-•-•- ^F^200 31T^?T qa^P (*i?l36lta) sntSTOTR'fi* aaiTan^T«b*ii* ?^lTI!R^lfS?f3II^T M.A. (d APPELLANTS Versus Respondents l Rubyl aged ^ Prem| Kumar Mishra, S/o Mishila, aged about 4 years I.C.I.C 4>l<lfri<i1'l <<|t|dl'»FI^'d•((uitsi'! ^sri^Tsn^sT Np.l584of 2008 Mishra, Widow of late Amit Mishra, ibout 25 years, Hoysewife, Late Amit Priya |Mishra, D/o late AmitMishra, aged about|2 years Appeljant No.2 85 3 are minor through their | legal natural guardian mother appell|ant No. 1 Ruby Mishra R/o ap are resident of Gandhi Nagar Near, G.P. Qupta's House, Gudiyari Raipur (CG) M/s. jBhagwati Power gs Steel Pvt. Ltd. D/55,1 Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Pactoijy Industrial Area, Siltara, Phase-2, Police) Station Dharsiva, District-Raipur (CG) |0wner of Dumber No. C.G.- 04G/4823) Jeevn|Lal Nishad, S/o Shri D.L. Nishad, aged ^.bout 30 years, Driver, R/o Village BramltLini, Police Station Gidhpuri, Pithor^, District-Raipur (CG) Other 1 address- M/s. Bhagwati Power Ss Steel yvt. Ltd. , D/55, Sector-5, Devendra NagarJ Raipur, Factory Industrial Area, Siltare) Phase-2, Police Station Dharsiva, Districjt Raipur (CG) Owner of Dumper No. CG- O+G/8823) I., Lombard General Insurance lai-asasi5'' ^3v^ ^iwm^, WTS\W\S, Rlril'Hy't *11*101 ^TT^ ^200 31^?!Vfs (l<tl'dcl<d) sn^iwR'ii'b (fsnaii^?rri>ficb s'RirtR^ifStTaii^r •2- 4. <ni<lfn<Ili iiinT^ffec8 '<luitsi'< ^sri^ran^?! ComFfany Ltd., Lal Ganga Complex, G.E. Road,| Raipur (Insurer of engine No. C.G. 04/0^823) Mohal-nmad Imtiyaz Khan, S/o Mohatnmad Mustak Khan, aged about 35 yearsj Occupation, Owner/driver Vehicle No. <;.G.-04 T/3206, resident of Gaji 5. Nagaij Distr^ M/s. Veergaon, Police Station Urla, ct Raipur (CG) Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Com^any Ltd., Shivmohan Bhavan, Vidha|n Sabha Road, District Raipur (Insuiter of Minidoor Vehicle No. C.G04T/3206) MISCELLANIOUS ALPPEAfc_UNDERSECTIQN_173 MOTOR VEHICt-E ACT 1988 D.B. Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, 6s Hon'ble Shri DUip Raoslaheb Deshniukh. JJ 01.12.2008 Mr. Alok Nigam, counsel| This is the claimantsl compensation awarded to th| for the appellants. appeal for enhancement of the bm for the death of Amit Mishra, husband of appellant No.l anijl father of appellants No. 2 & 3, who died on 29.3.2007 as a result cj The appellants are wife| (hereinafter referred to as 'th^ f motor vehicle accident. son and daughter of Amit Mishra deceased'). They preferred a claim petition stating therein that th^ deceased, aged about 22 years, was vsv^ ^.IWIVW, U>TcTI'M<l<», felril'Hy'i *ii*idi ?ew —————••———— ^1^200 311^91V (ijc|ljd<d) an^CTiprR'ii* ssnsi^vww S'RIISR -Hfid STI^CT 3 employed with Rashnii Sponge| as Electrician. On 29.3.20( traveling in Auto Minidoor be| the same was dashed by a Duj G/8823, resulting in grievo] ultimately succumbed to fh^ respondent No.l, driven by re and was insured by responde| deceased was drawing rnonthl ofRs.17,86,000/- was claimec^ Respondents No. 1 8s 2 i: occurred due to negligence 01 also denied working of the dec salaiy pleaded by the claima accident occurred as a result Minidoor and the Dumper has accident. It was also pleaded t insured by respondent No.3 fi liability, if any, is fastened, re; same. Respondent No.S/insure has also denied the claimants' Leamed claims Tribuns claimant Ruby Mishra and fi ci>i<iFn<Ili fi*inl"'fls^l 'cluitsix ^)3lf^tH3II^ST Iron & Power Industries Ltd., Siltara )7 around 9.15 pm while he was kring registration No.CG-04-T/3206, mper bearing registradon No. CG-04- [is injuries to the deceased, who \- same. The vehicle was owned by [spondent No.2 at the relevant time, ^it No.3. Further, claiming that the ^ salary of Rs.10,000/-, a total sum under various heads. |i their reply denied that the accident \i the part of respondent No.2, they ^ased in the said Firm, including the (it. It was further pleaded that fhe |of rash and negligent driving of the been falsely implicated in the above [lat since the vehicle in question was j)r the relevant period, in that case, ^pondent No.3 is liable to satisfy the ^nce Company in its separate reply [slaim on the identical ground. [1, on the basis of evidence of the |irther relying on the statenients af <d-cq '«1010<4,t»TTlt1<IS,Rrtl'H^ *ii*irii ^mqp •••--••••••—•-•-•••-•- ^200 311^91 <ra<p ('ipig^s) 3ii^iT<i>i R-ii'i' aziT3II^Td>*l ?^aT8R^lf8cT3II^?T ^P prpve awafded eyewitnesses Kamlesh Mishra accident occurred as a result Dumper by respondent No.2, respondents have failed to negligent. Further, assessing i(ic per nionth, taking his age t^ towards the expenses the decjf the Tribunal assessed the losj annuin and selecting multiplieji payable to the claimants, Apart from the above amount, consortium, Rs.5,000/- towarc(s towards loss of love & affectioln Accordingly, a total sum of claimants. Leamed counsel for the was not justified in assessing per month as wife of the dejc witaiesses Kamlesh Mishra, deceased was employed as El|e drawing Rs.10,000/- per mont|i We have heard learneitl perused the impugned award. <ni<ifn<Ili ii*inT^fts»<!l'(fuitSK ^sri^pTsn^r ^nd Sriram Choudhary, held that the |of rash and negligent driving of the in which the deceased died and the that the driver of Minidoor was iticome of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- be 22 years and deducting l/3rd ;ased would have himself incurred, of dependency at Rs.24,000/- per ejr of 17 for calculating compensation compensadon of Rs.4,08,000/-. ^. sum ofRs.12,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- and mental agony, were awarded. |Rs.4,35,000/- was awarded to the ^.ppellants submits that the Tribunal ^alary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- ;eased Ruby Mishra as also other 1'iave categorically stated that the 'ctrician in the said Firm and was from there. counsel for the appellants and ^cET-qi«i««, y-(Tl'M<ld, Rril^y^ *11*1rtl ^TT^ 3I1^9T q5R! (^crfgcRg) ^200 SII^TiBFfSqTcR cIS)T3II^?ISCTT!R s^fiw^itean^r 5" that he was drawing Rs.l0,(] the claimants have not filed their claira. Leamed counse] 'bl^fri^^ 114c»T^fe'<SI•<R|^;|< ^'aif^Hsil^ST The Tribunal has disbjslieved the evidence of Ruby Mishra (PW-1) and Kamlesh Mishra (pW-2) regarding salaiy of the deceased i00/- per month, on the ground that any documentary evidence to support for the appellants fairly submits fhat no document was produced l^y the claimants to support their claim that the deceased was dr^iwing salary of Rs.10,000/-. The contention of the appellan s that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the unrebutted or41 evidence adduced by the claiinants regarding salary of the decea^ed, is unacceptable, particularly when a specific pleading was made] in the claim petition that the deceased was serving as Electa-ician trial. Therefore, we are of th in a "Pvt. Ltd. Company" and no documents from that compa|iy was produced or proved during the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the ^laiined salary of the deceased and by taking monthly salary at the|rate of Rs.3,000/- i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, has rightly assess|ed the :compensation payable to the claimants. Since the otherl issues were decided in favour of the appellants/claimants and tljie respondents have not preferred any appeal against the above finiping, the saine has attained finality. For the aforesaid rea^ons, we are of the considered opinion that fhe compensation asse^sed by the claiins Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the ^vidence adduced by the claimants and n'7 ^v^'^iwwv, t»-(Tl<«<i<»,Rrti<(iy<< g) *11*101 ^RW an^ST 'racF ('j^fg^s) ^200 3n^?T!FlRrllcb a2iT3ii^?T»i)*ii* tll 'B'RITSR^TliasII^?! & the same is just and proper c<j were entitled. There is no i deserves to be dismissed at| accordingly, dismissecL Sd/- i Dhirendra Mishra Judge <PI<l[<-»<i1t11*«BT»Ffal^l'tful't^l'! i&arf^T3iit?T impensation, for which the claimants •ubstance in this appeal, the saine the admission stage itself and is Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge