APPEILLANTS CLAIMANTS RES PON DENTS NON~APPLICANTS high Valuation of Apggg (2) /, /, m”‘/@ C?) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G) Wj/ 2005 m'vision Benm' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. Jamuna Bai W/o. Dhanush Ram Sahu Aged about 34 Year Ku. Purnima S/o. DhanushRam Sahu Aged about 14 Year Name Singh S/o. Dhanush Ram Sahu Aged about O9 Year Ku. Seema D/o. Dhanush Ram Sahu Aged about 05 Year Ku. Sevti D/O. Dhanush Ram Sahu Aged about 1.5 Year Malikram S/o. Dhudhru Ram Sahu Aged about 55 Year, appellahts no 2 to 5 are represented by Iegal guardian mother appellant n01, All are R/o. Parsada, RS. Nevra,Tah.- Tilda, Distt. ~ Raipur (CG) VERSUS Ajay Prajapati S/o. Bharat Prajapati C/o. Sadar Duljeet Singh, o/O Lakhbeer Singh,R/o— 1392/A, Madan Mahal JabalpurTah & Distt Jabalpur (M P) Sadat Duueet SlngtrS/o Lakhbeer Slnqh R/o 119/A Madan Mahal Jabalpur Tah & Dlstt Jabalpur (M P ) (3) hrougn DMSlonal Manager Mandal 1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road Raipur, Bistt— Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under/section 173 Motor Vehicle Act 198_8_ ,(1); The Onental Insurance Company Llmlteclv w“ and District Judqe Raipur in claim case No 78/2004 dated 31 03 2005 in the case of Jamuna Bai 8i Another V/s. A1ay & Another. w/ Rs. 2, sqoaot The appellants named above most respectfully beg to prefer this appeal on the following facts and grounds amongst others. eing qqneved by the Judgement and award passed by Additional Motor Acc1dent Claims Tribunal FACTS OF THE CASE 1HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. ,1 475 OF 2005 Appéllants/ : Jamuna Bai & Others Claimants Versus Ajay Prajapati & Others Resf’m'ndentsl Nonf—applicants 1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, JJ V; Present : Shri SC Verma with Shri Aditya Khare, Advocates for appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19‘" day of January, 2010) Heard on M(C)P No. 1817/05, application for condonation of delay in tiling the appeal. On due consideration, l am satisfied that the counsel for appellant is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in tiling this appeal. Accordingly M(C)P No. 1817/05 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31 03.2005. passed by the Vlllth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) in claim case No. 78/04, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 5,19,000/- has been awarded to theappellant for the death of Dhanush Ram Sahu. The brief facts of the case are that, on 12.12.2003, said Dhanush Ram sahu met with an accident with Truck bearing registration No. «A nx ' MP-20-G-4431 which was being driven rashly and negiigently by re$pondent No. 1 Ajay Prajapati and owned by respondent No. 2, ar$d succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. i ¢ The claimants, i.e. unfortunate widow and minor children, by tiling a éclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act')) against the respondents, claimed Rs. 8,06,000/— as compensation for death of deceased in the said accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and u . the material available on record, awarded Rs. 5,19,000/— alongwith interest @ 4 percent per annum from the date of application till its a recovery. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side which deserves to be enhanced. l have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the order impugned. As per evidence adduced by the appellants, the deceased was loader in the cement factory and was used to earn around Rs. 4000I- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 4000l-per month. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16, as per llndSchedule to Section 163-A of MV Act, if age of the deceased is between 35 to 40 years, then multiplier applicable is 16. Afte'r"\deducting 1/3“ of the amount of income towards personal expenses of’the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of yearly dependency at Rs. 36,000/-, applied multiplier of 16, and thus awarded Rs. 5,12,000l- towardsilossiofm was dependency The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs 7000/~ towards other Heads Ie Rs 20001— towards loss of consortium and thus awarded a totai sum of Rs 5 1 9 000/— as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased whlch In the consfdered opinion of this (fourt cannot be sand to be on tower srde 10. Shn Khare fal|ed to pomt out any Illegattty or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal 11. tn‘the result, the appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is heby dismissed at admission stages No order asto costs. towards funeral expenses and Rs 5000/- N.K. Agawal Judge er