.»» k^. •!u Swfe1 :R ^, ' f '^' IN THE_HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <<-' (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC) N0. // <yK OF 2009 APPELLANTS ,e,^'?& ....-•Y<d^"^lp- ^^^-^^ ^eft-" NON-APPLICANTS; Claimed before Tribunal 1. Smt. Mahalaxmi, W/o Kuripudi Badarrao, aged about 43 years, 2. Kuripudi Badarrao, S/o Vadapalli, aged about 50 years, Both are R/o Village Panampahu, Tahsil Samalkot, District East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh) VERSUS 1. Mohanlal Sinha, S/o Ramchand Sinha, aged about not known, Occupation-Driver, Through: Meha Transport Bastar Raod, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Meha Transport, Through: Rajendra Nanda, S/o Banshilal Nanda, aged about not known, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch "Manager/Branch Office-Near Balvidya Mandi, Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) Rs. 17,50,000/- 'u,- AmountawardedbythelearnedTribunal : Rs. 2,44,500/- Claimed in this Memo of Appeal : Rs. 2,00,000/- ^^f»^ V^~^"1i^-A)s3<A^ 4^^ c^Am ^lu- c^ ^- (juAA-5 crf- |a<Ajt)a(>l(~e-n-- 0--ui\ ?V\£jsw-^_- T XI-HC—78 *<I*ICTI »qr<t» 'S^ '<fWWil, WTlly'IS, fqWKHy ^;,MA<- (^8 311^1 'tR?? (Tpfgq^Et) 311^1 ^ltoW w^ sn^r ^i^ic»» TOIIWfltelsiI^t S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 24.07.21 Shri PP Sahu, Advocate fo Heard on admisslon. The instant appeai is diref seeking enhancement of compe^isation 19.02.2009, passed by the Ad|ditlonal Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari (for No. 11/2008, whereby and wher^under, bachelor son, an amount of Rs. | compensation. (ited by the appellants/ctaimants, against the award dated Motor Accidents Claims 'the Tribunat'), In claim case r, for the death of claimant's |2,44,500/- has been awarded as A claim case under Sectiftn has been preferred by the Satyababu, who died in an accicfent going in the motorcycle, claimin^ 17,50,600/- The Tribunal, on close scl'i parties, the material available 0(1 the parties, awarded a sum of| alongwith interest @ 6 perce|it application, assessing the inccjme appiying multiplier of 10. sftW^Tifh ^ffldf ^f fe^ <^i'(-$!< ^aiRpr aii^i the appeilants. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ;laimants/parents of deceased ent on 19.03.2008, whi!e he was compensation to the tune of Rs. utiny of the evidence led by the the record, and submissions of Rs. 2,44,5001- as compensation per annum on the date of Rs. 3000/- per month and *'•. Vf^; ;'Psiisa<SffSafi8S^^S^^^§BSi%>l;»J(i8i; •i . ^ •• • • • -—.--—^—•~~ n--—'•'''• ['"" •."•^-^"•s^"f:;^f- \:^: SBg®gff| XI-HC—78 TST '<iww!i, ®Til<-rifi,fsicii'Hy *ll*lCTi (hlich •^200 s^\ icra^ (Tpf3^Ef) sii^r ^i R-I wn wA»a>ii% Sahu wnw^ftnsii^i Shri Sahu submits that the multiplier of 10 as the deceased| multiplierof 17 oughtto have been] 1 have heard thecounsel fo( In view of the dictum of Supr^me Court passed in case of Municipal Corporation of Great^ Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCi that in those cases where the deceased, the multiplier should n^ has also been followed by a Divi^ several cases. No other arounds have bleen raised bv the appellants, therefore, in view of the dicta laid| the above stated matter, the ^ accordingly dismissed at motion st| '^'i''lfci4l^ M\^v^ ^T fe^ <[^I'^.K ^sfRnafl^si 'ribunal has wrongty applied the was 25 years aged, therefore applied. .appellants, perused the record. •r Bombay v. Laxman lyer & S 731, wherein it has been held claimants are parents of the ver exceed 10. The same ratio ijon Bench of this High Court in down by the Supreme Court in ppeal is liable to be and is aae. Sd/- ^.K.A8^al judge I-' J_.l;T ;i;i''.i:.::v:^.^::^^a^..^^.^-^: .3.;':;%^ari^;iS'WWffilis9SBSISI; ^:r,^i^'^^£^^^'ffi^i^[:i^iiiit?^^^ ^)!'^