S^ET -^w^, ??Tfl<n<c, Rio'ii'yy *<IMdl *^l«b WI, 200 an^?r VSRK (ipf^iqw) sn^r.'^i K-ii* WHSIR^I shW'h 'B^IRR ^to 311^1 MISC. APPEAL (C i A1SP??T ¥- AWP S CLAI?.!ANTS aged ^unneec n.aLir, w / o MU~na Singl, aeed about 48 vears. No.l Na-gal', Durg, District Durg (C.G) RESPONDENTS tVtOW..A.'0'O'S T/^AWWOl Sl' 1 1 Raie? l.7-~Ui Centt Naga( Durg) The Branj M I, ij a-1113 locall near Einiieli tll'itct'fll *1I1CTI'?'fe'St' <Ri]<<;K ^aTRn sn^i N0.1056/2007 Singh, S/o Dharrna Singh, aDout ou years, •11V/ ^t^lj^f<^-llC4.11l-)3 f\y t^ J.l'u'lAOl-. j UeepaK Wagar, Ky. Monan [ Versus ^int Singh, S/G A. Singh, agecl] about '£1 years, by occufaB-fcion-a. driver. R/o Central ! ^) .ivlover-s, Transporfc Nagai'; Hathkhoi, Bhilai, District Durg EC.Q.j h Shrivastava v a.shtsl'itiia. INCUCtJ'cAli.j R/o R/o 'al Cargo Movers, Transport M'a"t-hLrhr>-t Rhilai Ptiotnr'i- f '.^"•"^-i^A.-y, j—A^*<-U^^T^U^^.^- (C.G.j New India Assurance ^any Limited, Through its ;h Manager, Branch Office \ Bui'ding. Sakchi. hedpur (Jhai-khand), address- Branch Office. G, E. .Ros.d. Powsr House !i, District Durg (C.G.) GR.PRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.000. L g^q- ^Mi4f0<<, ^Tn^'lri, R^iuy __.......^.Q^..L^.£<?../.O^L wmr g^f^---—-^--------^---^200 sn^r iraw (ijsif^gqa) dll^l.WR-li'tl mrsn^i *>i ^iiwHfro sii^i •*l''<Ict*il'l *<wS ^f fcIZt <lal<il< iraiRn sii^i Misc. Apoeal uader Section 173 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, 1 Anpearance: Shri Manoi Jaiswal, counlsel for the apoellants D.B-: HON'BLB SHRI L.C. BHjU)00, J, & K@*.!^ SISKA.J, ORAL O^DBR 1'TtfS nq ^^•f^^.t/^1 4007} L^C.Bhadoo._J. Heard. The claimants have pi^ Section 173 of the Motorl enhancement of the compensati by the award . dated 26/3/g Additional Motor Accidents Cla) Case No. 132/2004, whereby, assessing the loss of depender| and by applying a. multiplier ofl dependency as Rs.3,12,000/-. ^ has also awai-ded Rs.2000/- expenses, Rs. 2500/- for loss on account of future expectanq Rs.3,26,500/- has been award^ sferred this appeal under Vehicles Act, 1.988 for ion amount, beine asgrieved 007 oassed by the First ms Tribunal, Dure in Claim the learned Tnbuna.1 after cy as Rs.24,000./- per vear 13 worked out. t.otal loss of Lpart from this, the Tribunal under the head of funeral af estate, and Rs. 10,000/- • of life. Thus, a total sum of ;4--in all. In additi.on to this, WB^ ^?^<TO XI-HC—78 ail^il ?T Riii.'n wisn^sOTw 'Y,- TSSI^WV^, fS^wie, ^'ftwy. ^. ^-.^Q..=.-J.-3-^ »» an^r^Era; (1pf^^) TWRsiT^iftaai^T 3 41'i|I<-l41-< Kl'id! 4.fs'^ Atsn ^aifim aii^i 6% interest p.a. has also bfcsen eranted from the date of filing of the application and i|n case t'ne amount is not paid within 2 months from the Bate of the award, then, the claimants shall be entitled foi[.9% interest p.a. There is a delay of 73 dbys in filins this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits as well as condonationlofdelav. The deceased was workins as a tnick driver at the time of the accident. The mofibrr of the decea.sed has stated tnat his son wa.s eaining Rsj4500/- per month. Even the witness No.l -owner of the t |Tjck has stat.ed t.hat. he was paying Rs.4500/- per montht but no documentai-y proof was fi1ed.by him to show that.|ihe was payine Rs.4500/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conelusion that normally, a driver gets. Rs.IpO/- per day, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs 3000/- per iTionth and after deductine 1/3 personai expen^es, loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.24.000/- per ailinum. Affer hearing learned colmsel for the appeliants and considering the award, we art of the considered ooinion that the income assessed bi| the Tribuna4 is iust and reasonable and is not in anv minner on the lower side. Thc accident took place (n the year 2002. Normally, at that time, the driver used tfci get Ra.100./- per dav. No evidence was adduced thati circunnstance, the owner was on aceount of special layine, Rs.4500/- p.m. and 'M .- ^--.-..•^-. E:! E-1 '3^3( ^WvW, ^wie, ^'jftw'y. "WTPIT **<|cb M i^Cc')- /o^/o-^ "ffV^ 200 si^sf vw (.^i^'ty) antn.'qiT R-fi* WTSIK^I ihll* o no documentary proof was al extent, we do not find any il| award of the Tribunal and i| cx^rrectly aoplied. At the time of death ol] claimant./father was 50 \\ claimant/mother was .48 yearj appended to the Motor Vehicle^ has been applied because in ca| 45 and 50 years, a multiplier of| For t.he foregoine illegality or infirniity in the a'B| amount awarded is iust and r| require interierence bv this C( There is no merit in this on limitation as well as on meritl Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge reasdns, ourt '4il<lI<'l'IB-( ^mvS fl fs^ <Rii<$i< i?3flwT3n^i so filed, therefore to this leeality or infirmitv in the nult.iplier of 13 has been the deceased, ae.e of the ears and a.ge of the i and as per schedule -II 1 Act, the correct multiplier se of persons a.eed between 13 has to be aoplied. we do not find any ard and the compensation iasonabie, which does not appeal and it is disinissed Sd/- Suni] Kumar Sinha Judge ^