HIGH CQURT 9F JUDIQAA’RE QHHAITISGARH. BILA§PUR (Dlwslon Bench) CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI 3R. NAYAK, CJ & HON’BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Misc. APPEALNOASS OF 2005 Appellants (1) Smt;Mangla Bai, Aged 25 years W/o Shivkumar Sahu (housewife) (2) Jitendra Kumar, Aged 5 years (Minor) S/o late Shiv Kumar Sahu (3) Kumar! Mam. Aged 2 years, (Minor) D/o late Shiv Kumar Sahu (4) Smt. Bhaga Bai, Aged 55 years W/o Jagdish Sahu (5) Rishabh Kumar Sahu. Aged 11 months Slo Shivkumar Sahu‘ On behalf of Minor appellants 2 3 and 5 men mother (next friend) Smt Mangia Bal All Rlo Village: Rawabham, Post Birgaon ‘ P.S. Khamtarai, District: Raipur (CG) VERSUS Resganggnts (1) ShankarlalSahu Slo SunderiaISahu (Driver of Scooty) Rlo Village Rawabha‘h Near Gaothan Tahsll & Drslt Ralpur (CG) (2) A.V. Murti Slo A.V. Annajirao Centre, Kurud. Tahsil Kurud, District Dhammri (CG). (Owner of the Scooty) R/o Primary Health The United lndla insurance Co Ltd. Through Dlvrswnal Manager Dwrswnal Oll'ce Katchen Chowk Jail Road Ralpur (CG) ¢ (3) Present: Mr. A.S. lqbal, leamed counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on __m__.._._ 28 of November 2005) The following Order of the Com: was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: In a death case the claimants who are the widow, minor children and parenw of the deceased filed an application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short "the Acf’). The Tribunal having conducted enquiry has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till payment. Not being satisfied with the above compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal. (2) We have heard Shri A.S. lqbal, leamed counsel for the appellana It was contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000l- per annum whereas the deceased was actually earning a sum of Rs.5,000/. as monthly income working as Supervisor in a Petrol Pump. lt was also contended that what is awarded towards loss of consortium is very much on lower side. (3) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that what ls awarded by the Tribunal ls in conformity with the Second Schedule. Admittedly, the application was made under Section 163-A of the Act. Only a sum of Rs.5,000/- oouid be awarded towards loss of consortium according to the said Schedule. Secondly, although the appellants-ciaimants claimed that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, they. have utterly failed to adduce any substantive legal evidence, documentary or oral, to substantiate that claim. ln that view of the matter, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and determined the loss of dependency by applying appropriate multiplier having regard to the /1 age of the deceased. The appeal is is accordingly diSMiSsea, h0weVef‘ WWI n0 GOStS. ”" ‘ Sd/~ Chief sd/_ r Satish K Justice k Judge ‘ \. Judge L % ’7