3-^r ^I-MI^^, ^>T{IWI(S, Is)0i-y^< ^) _...M^.;..^.. ^l^dl *NI<4» ^ 200 ^ 3ni?rT?^? (^?f^5^) ^i^r^T'f^N' ^^TI ^iR^i ^T^I^ ^ j i^TWT1^3?H^[ TCT AppeUaats RESPONDBNTS <^i^i<vi41'i ^rn^ ^'fe%t ife^R ^3tfOT37?^¥r A(C) No7IlS^Tof 2007 1, S22it Menka, w/o late Surendra Kumar, aged about 23 years, 2. Mular Sahu, s/o PUa Das Sahu, aged about 50 years 3. Kasturiya Bai, w/o Mular sahu, aged about 45 years 4. Devki Bai, d/o Mular Sahu, aged about 22 years, AU residents near Raninagar Muktidham, beside Sialia Aata Chakki, Bhilai, TahsU & Distt. Durg (C.G) 5. Chaachal Sahu (Muior) d/o Late Surendra Kumar, aged about 8 monfhs, fhrough her Mofher Legal Guardiaa Smt Menka, w/o late Surendra Kumai', r/ o near Ramnagar Kuktidhaoi beside Soiaha Aata Chakki, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G). ^ersus 1 Ekabal, s/o AQal, aged about 30 years, r/o Ganjpara, near Sati Chom'a Durg, TahsU & Distt. Durg (C.G) 2 Smt. Sakuntala Saliu, w/o Gajaaaad Sahu, r/o near sahu Sadan, Kelabadi, Durg, Talisil 85 Distt. Durg (C.G). 3 The New India Insuraace Conipaiiy Ltd., fhrough Bran.ch Manager, Power House Project, ia front of Auto Mobile, G.E. Road, Bhilai, ^ 3:^T ^i^l^, t$Tn-y^<s, fc)0|^^< Nl^dl *^(cb •^ 200 'STT^T^ f^rl[ch ^[ST[ 'STT^T stK-ti<^ 3nit?T'q^R (4?<^<^) '^TTW^ft^^n^T .^-- Misc. Appeal u Appearaace: Shri P.M. Shriv, D.B: Hoa'ble Stri Justice L.C. Bhadoo, J 85 Hon?ble SUri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinlia, J. whereuntler L.C.Bhadoo, J, Heai'd. The claimants Motor Vehicles Act 19< August 2007 passed Tribunal (FTC), Dur^ whereby aad dependency to the Rs.2000/- has been i for love aad affection, m all Rs.4,18,000/- aanuin from. tlie date Learaed couns< that tiie incoBie of lower side i.e., Rs. Rs.6000/- p.m. In chl^ltd^'l 1:TFRff ^f^'fe^ iPai^K ^r'siRw'BTT^T TaIisU 85 Distt. Durg (C.G) laisuraace company. s 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct. », counsel for fhe appeUaats. ORAL ORDBR (23.10.2007) I]|ave preferred this appeal u/s 173 ofthe ?8 beiag aggrieved by the awai'd dated 4th >y tlie XIIth Addl, Motor Accident Clainis (C.G), ia Claim Case no. 137/2006 tlie Tnbunal has awarded the loss of t|une of Rs.,4,08,000/-. Besides fhis, i|warded for funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- [Rs.3000/- for loss ofestate and thereby been awarded wifh iaterest @ 6% per |f filiag of fhe claim petition. s|l for the clamiao.ts/appellarits argued deceased has been assessed on the - per iiiontli whereas he was earaing 29 of ihe iinpugned award, learaed hbs tlte 30(|)0/ Pfera •3^' -M|<4|^, ^TO'y^Ko, {°l<y>>t^^< ^IINdl ^»NI<sb ^ 200 ^T^y^T'^iN? ^m^T^T^HNT 31I^?T X?5TsE (^t^??) ^^IT^R ^fi^ 3??^¥T -3- Tribunal has held thlt (A.W.3) has stated thjs but he has not towards salary to hi^ only fhe salary certif^c been produced, ttier^ deceased Surendra It has further been aged about 25 yeai's Tailor in fhe shop of' earning about Rs. 1001 Court. rendered m th( Maleshram and other^ been held that he used to the nature of worl meaiis, fhe conclusioh uni'easonable, therefo^ argument of leamed aiid after deducting 2/3 i.e. Rs.2000/- depeudency and the At fhe time of said to be 25 years about 23 years, fafher 45 years are also fhe Schedule attached witH pe|r ^Hid^l'i T??WTf ^fe^ <Rs8^i< ^^ifTO^?^T fhe owner of the shop namely Tahaldas at he used to give Rs.6000/- per month, pijoduced any record reganlmg payment employees. This witness has produced ;ate but supporting documents have not sfore, it caanot be considered that the K|umar was gettiag Rs.6000/- per month. hepd that Surendra Kuraar, a young inaa of at fhe tiine of accident, was workiag as ^ahaldas aad it is reasonable fhat he was r- per day, ia view offhe decision offhis matter of Shiv Kumar and others -Vs- 2006 L.T.fC.G) 96, and thereby it has to eara Rs.3000/- per month. Lookmg which the deceased was doiag by all of the Tribunal caanot be said to be \e, we do uot find aay substance ia the lounsel for the appellants to that extent /3rd of expenses on himself, rcmammg raonth has been assessed as loss of m|iiltipUer of 17 has been appUed. a|ccident, deceased Surendra Kumar was m this case. Wtfe ofdeceased aged ^.ged about 50 years, mofher aged about claimants aad lookiag to the Second tlie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a correct of^ge ntain 1>.'-. 317^?T ?5T'f^N' TT^T W^T 5h^l<=h "^' ki*^' 75ET ^|<4|<^<q, t$x{1<1^<o, fs|<»'>l'y^< _^_ .../^.JQ^..M..^..^.l?.... 'WtR'ff ^^•^^^^-^^-^•^••••^••-••"•"••^200 3ni(?T x[5ra? (4c(f^<N<<ar) inultipUer has been a^pUed because as per fhe schedule if ttie age is between 20 a^id 25 years, multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Therefore, for considered opmion fjiat the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable coisipens^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <=bi^f<n<fl<i "W^rf '^\f^^ <f^^i< ^^rRm^TT^T the foregomg reasons, we are of the Ltion to fhe claimants aad there is no illegality or mj5rmity i^. the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal b^ing devoid of merits is liable to be disniissed and the s^iae is hereby disinissed at the niotion stage itsetf. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge