iiKEfi CGiiR? {3F S?§§=€§T§'§SG§XR§’B W? §§L£§SFL§R M§$$ELLANE$HS QPF£$§L NQ €§Ti3i2¥3€$§ uGh19Q§ E Qn! 35 I¢TIPE DI EU h§MMAD a. a: wi u‘mvu are: &??ELL£N“§‘ %<ami; Sahu‘ Aaed amut 4b yéam, Sic L itram Sam Rm Uria Baum. Pt; Urm Dan-“luv Tala :1 akhi nhdwin+ “a ram, as; g an». wl‘vmaVk Ralpw §i§?$i£S §»€_F$PQNEENY$ 1 Manoj Kumar. Aged amen: 1Q y’n‘ngw’ C“ g ur’lv Q n Qnka?’ .1 ha. L4; a Sayakwaa‘ Mekorcwie Driven Dfa nu XiiHArn vlna$ Ixaum nwgn m g; Aabanaha H b gma, hm r Davuw- lf" " \ u ¢anvn “may a \w V 2 Mahaniai Satnamt‘ Sio L‘ashwr Satmmi, NiOLOi’C‘ICie OWfief, K/O Vmage ma“ @ Aabanahe‘ PS. Dagma. mama Raipur (£16.) E?E$§§;LL§%§\ tUiJ9%: AP?&AL UNgtK $tél MON ’Ei$ f}? H1E MMT'I‘nQ M'EHEPS E éQFT 4@§§ “s n v s vu www ., —£i—-———— 1X nngavgqce z aw. AL. binaraui Caunsei fay ’Ihe apnaiiam, am, mi awn: :~ xo ugnu, L‘ (\N‘N‘AH: vu‘yhiain :G? 3m m8 fEapG§u6in@. A .4 mt QR’EL @RDER §@4.12.w'§w “me fmmwmg order 9f the Cowt was passec: by 3mm mama? 3mm. :5: The apyenamjmmmant iwas fiied this appéai fer eniiancemem of comaema‘tmm awam‘ad m malm Ga$a N0.4Qi2904 by the Thineemh Addétmnai MaiurvAccadent CiaImS a rmmaa L} Ramur (L G ) Vide awam aatea 2d U2 2UG5 'iha aweéiammiggmani 13s ‘me wn m“ aecea$ed — Gane$mya Baa. wm met With an accaciem 0n 2?.i02GQ3. When we wa$ Hashes: by the affenamg mumrcyme wammg . J a m \ \ \ 2 “/imiitELLilNEGU?‘ §PPEAL N0.5?3i‘2§@5 regisiratmn No.0G‘04—ZE-v7953. Resgmndent N02 ts mg ewner (if 33$ mOtOFCVCSE am} r€$g§andem Na? WES afivmg the m0i0fCVCE at ihe Time OT th$ aCCmEm. The appellanyciagmant ‘msa a ciaam pemion unaer Sammn “£66 mad wiih $ectlon MO a? the Meitor Vehiciea Act (m gram “me Aat’), ciaammg compensainon 0f Rs.40 Sakhs for i‘ne {jeam of me {ieceased an me said accrdent. Cm 27102663, the aeceased received various inaunes in the said acciaent. wmm wa$ caméa cm account cf msh and negiigem aiming (3f me 6am matesmycEe ml resnondent N0.‘i. Trze aeceasee was aammed m “me hospital. She remamed in the haspata! Tm a very mng pea’ma‘ Firstiy, she wa$ ireated ‘m me Government Hosmtalg simaa and fhereafier. she was wmmea‘ in the Medicai Co§§ege Hoseufal, Raipur. After few days: the Geceased was diecharged fmm ihe Medical Coilege Hespiiaig Raiput However, on (Mm V2004, the d$$$3i§€é died 0n aCQDtjn‘t 0f 'mE mmt'tE3 SU$tamEd 3y hat m the mOtOf ECCKjemi. The Ta'ibumai new mat me accident occmrred cm accaum ef rash ancé negiugem arivmg of the memrcycie hy feepme‘ent No.1; ihe deceaeed wee treated in the Medicas‘ Caiéege é‘éospatai; Ralpur; and she was discharged fmm the hoeetta! \itae Ex.P/8. After her death, the pestmartem eXamma’tmn was cenaectect and the Aumijsy Sutgeai’t epined that the death eccurred due to commicatlonez infected waunds; and ingunes sustained by the tieceased. The poetmontem report is Ext-2112. ‘Tne tneunai further hetd that the appeiient was the mater Sen aged abcut 25 years and the deceaeed was aged about '85-?0 years; theretere} the appettam was net dependant on tne deseaeeci ene he wee not emitted to get compensetmn on aceeunt 0f rieatn of the cieceased in the meter aeciaent. However. the Tribunat awardea a sum at tteJeQDI- to the aenetien’t en account 0t renderrng his eervtees ta teak after the deceased amt rt eieo awarded RS‘ZEIGGI— tewards funeral exeeneee. ‘t'ne Tribunai, thus, awarded a totat sum at ‘ I 7 MS$CELLANEGUS .mjPEAL NG.5?3IEG§35 RsJO‘HCmI- a$ commemation ‘Eo the appeiiant for the daath of me aeaeaSed. The Trabuna! aiso awarded intarest @‘?% fwm ihe date of fnmg 0f the ciatm petition Em {eaiazauon LéaHYed COUnSe§ fOl' me appeilam afgue$ that i§?$ ?§H€!!?1g resumed mi the Ciaims Tribunai cannai be sustained m vmw 0f me dictum of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Smt. Mamim" Béra vs. (Mama; msm‘ance Co. Lion. 2m“)? MR $CW ".3862. He aiso argues that m any case: when tne Trtmma! hem that the death occurred on ameunt at the mater amcsent, the amcunt which is navahte under n0 fauit itabmtv undar $ectt0n ‘i 4G 0f the Act} augttt tn have been awarded 3y the Tnbunat On the ather hand. teamed counsel far the rewoments opwses mesa arguments and sugports the award passed by the Ctaims Tribunal. He argues that the appettam was not the Onty {agar repreeentetrve of the deceased: thererore, tte ts not emitted to get campensation and mere ie m) questran at enhancement in thie matter. in 8mt. Mamwi Beta (Sanrat. ner' Br. Ange: Pesey’at J.“ “in terme at" Section mart) (c) in case of oieatn. an or any ot the iéCtai represeni&ti\le$ 0f the decea$ed DECOme emitted f6 compensation and any such iegar repreeentative can fiie a cram": eetition. According to Section 2(tt) of CR2 ‘tegai repreeentative‘ means a person wnc in iaw represents the eetate of a deceaseo persen, anti inciudes any person who intermeadtee Wit’n the eetate of the eeceasecj and where a party sues or is eued in a renresentative character the pereon on Winona the estate devclves on the death of tne party eQ eumg 0r sued. A legai remesentative is cne who suffers on eooount of death of a person due to a motor \remoie acetoent and need not necessariiy be a Wife, nueoandr parent and ohitd. The right to nae e ciaém aooitoetton has to be ooneroereo in tne background of nght to entitlement. White aseessmg the Quantum, the muttipiier eyetem is eppiteo because ot‘ oeorivatton of depenoiency. in other words mu‘itiptter is a measure. Ltabiitty tn 4 MiSCELLiANEOUS APPEAL NQ.5?3I‘21W5 terms 0f Section 140 however does not cease because m“ absence of dependency. Therefore, even if there is no iass of dependency the cteimant if he or she is a iegei representatwe Wm be entitied to cempensaiion, the qHantum of which shagi he not iese than me iianiiity fiowmg from Section 140.” in ihe sen: matter, the ciaim pention med by the marnea‘ ciaugn'ter of a motor aceéoent vuoiim was held io be maxmemanse i e ano It was neid that she cougo not be denied oompeneetmn an \ the ground tnai she was not dependent on the deceased. in caee on hand: the appeiiant is the son of the eeceaeeo‘. Even If at i3 neid that he was noi dependant en the oeceaeed, hie right to me a ctatm petttton was intact tinder the Motor vehtctes Act and the ctatm petition med by the appettant tor ecmpensetten under Seottons 166 Lend MO of the Act was matntatnantet __ The Trahunei recorded a poem-we tending that there was a nekus between the accident and eeath ot‘ the deceased. The noetmortem report of the deceased {EXP/12}: aiso reveate that tne death occurred eue to compttcetions; infected wounde; end inguries eustained by the deceased. Having heio tiite that: the t‘ribunat further heid that since the appetiant was net dependant on the deceased; he was not emitted to receive ccmhehsatien terrier death tnthe motor accident. We do net aphrove this finding recordeo by the Ciaime T‘ri‘ounat in View of the oeCieion of the $upreme Court rendereo in the matter of emt. Mehiuri §ere (eager. For the above reasons} we set aeade the said ttnothg aha! hoid that the appeiiant, even if was not dependent on the deceased; was entttted to me a ctatrn petition under Sections tt36 and 140 of the Act anti we aiso head that the quantum to Which he wouid be entitled woutd not be iess than the iianitity ttowmg from Section 140. According to Section 140 of the Act, the no fauit tiahttt‘ty on the date ct the accident was Rs.5t),OUO/-. z therefore, we hotd that the ap‘peiiant was emitted to get r \ Rs‘50i3wl- as compensation for the death or ms mmher m the m0i0i' aCCidem. it Es directed that the respondents shaii be gQintEy am ‘ severaiiy habie i0 pay a sum of Rs.50,00Di— as compénsa’uan m me appeiiam .They shaii aiso be Name to pay interesst @ 6% $91 annum fmm me Gate of tiling of the cialm petition iii} ‘me date of mauzaimfi. The appeal ;$ aimweci to the extent mmcamd abave. There shaai be no arder as i0 casts. Sd/- R.L. JhanWar Judge If W ‘ r</i . S“),— ' Sunil. Kumar Sinha H Judge shyna V.“ y MlSCELLRNEDUb‘ APPEAL N0,5?$J‘2m?§