^^.y&t.,. /£'y\ -r^OAft^- • ij^iM5; •!ujt'a~;iLi*'i3V3. a^^uii'i'^ S ii-lf- »snr >N'l "<» ^-ib" r'S-,8»a»^^.i isl! ^?^^)' 51«/ff^ 1. Smt; Mamtz Kumar Jain, A( Jain W/o Ramesh jed about 36 years, at+i 2. Ku. Riya Jain, minor D/o Late jed about 12 years Kumar Jain 3. Amit Jain, Aged about 8 years minor S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Jaln •On beha'f of Minor Appellants No.2 .. S 3 their legai guardian Smt. Mamta Jain Appe'lant No.1, A!I are resident of Ratan Apartment Gayatri Nagar Raipur Tahsil & Dsstt. Raipur (C.G.) :S]-'UE'<iUC! o Harjeet Arora, Aged 44 years, S/o Late Ramnath Arora, Occupation Truck Driver, R/o Station Road, Nsar Raipur(C.G.) Hemlata Arora, Aged 35 years, D/o Premnath Arora, R/o Narmada Para Station. Road; Raipur, Tahsi! & District Raipur (C.G.] The Nev/ India Snsurance C-ompany Ltd., Through : Divisionaj Manager, Ohfeiona! Office No.1, Jsil Road, . Kachahari Chovvk, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) T^?^ina*^jn. ^i^- fli. t^-S"&ia-'3'l 1 IE^^.C?.!?* ¥sh'i?(i'IU SJS ff^.UU^Sffi'K ^UO^ ^s Lf'rf'Sff' U, Itdi'r s Present: Shri AS Iqba!, counsel for the appeiiants. •th -i-•<••;' ^n.'ii TDi'owina orae? ier of t" h-, ea Dy' iSV UUD'it Though the matter is !isted today for orders on default, as tsamed counsei for the appeliants is prepared and vc'willina to argue the appea! on admission, he Is hsard on admission. 2) The appeliants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Flrst Additional Motor Accident CIaim Tribuna! Raipur (CG) (henceforth "theTribunai") vide award datee 29.09.2007 passed in Claim Case No.12/2007. 3) As against the 'compensatlon of Rs.52, ciairned by the ciaimants, the deceased - Rarnesh Kumar Jain for his death in the motor accident,the Tribuna! awarded a sum of Rs.17,99,910/- aiora 'A'ith intersst © 6% per snnum from the date of filing of'the cSaim petition SiiS the dats of actua! payment. 4) Shri AS Iqbal, learned counse! Tor the appeilants vehi ,1V SIU that thi rgued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low \ / *. compensation of Rs.1J,99,910/- oniy, as against the sum of Rs.52,00,000/- claimed by ths ciaimants as compensation. 5) , The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,54.490/- per annum. By deducting 1/3''" of the said %.y^.'f^\-\^ Am,-^-2rrl^ ?*i£t?'^rii^3s! Idvy°iQnoO]<s r^f +ho ^C!?^<a''3c;orl i'l Ktii^^il^ i,y'i;jtQiU.O J,,idOUUS;i %A^d ISG'S ^j1 ii SC; UCik-fCCi5&^;U; li ^.s&^s^ li»- • ~"al <iS "i-se's-"' 'i\ claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,02,994/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.1,02,994/- with the multiplier of 15; the CQmpensation was worked out to Rs.15,44.990/-. The .Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funera! expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.10,000/- each to claimants No.2 & 3 for loss of iove and affection; and Rs.20,000/-.for loss of estate. In addltlon, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- tov/ards medicai expenses for treatment of the deceased between 18.09.2006, the date of accident, to 3.10.2006, the date on which the deceased succumbed tc his injuries 'during the course of his treatment in hosDital. The Rs.17,99,910/-as 6) 'The income {he Tribunal on the ibunal, thus awarded total sum of isation to the claimants. of the deceased has been assessed by basis of his income tax returns. The dependency of the claimants has been assessed after deduoting 1 /3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal enses. The muitiDiier of 15 selected the Tribunal considering that the deceased was aged about 40 years is rather on the higher side. 7) / We, therefore, do not find any scope for 'enhancerhenS of the corHpensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, orthe claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier seJected. ffa.t padms n^ 8) The hereby dismissed summariiy SdA iGKiefJustice therefore, is liable to be dismissed '^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ~*»- ;!;.,:; -q .^t. SlfeliaaiiilBB