200- u... mm,m,m mm WI uu..u..nn.......u.unnn , ma‘r‘mxm mmewmh v%31%w311%¥1 ' "GH’E' E SHE JUST 75412007 Shri Saurabh Sharm Shri Ravindra Agraw Heard. :CE BHIRE““RA MIBHRAJ “U \ms’qrGW) \ u,» a, Advocate for the appellant. a1, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and 4. CL) Mm. Aggeai No. 13 1/2006 APPELLAWI‘ 1 The N6w india Assurance Company Insurér gimitad, thmugh Divisional Manager, e 'New india Assurance Company L'mited, Sscend. Floor, Rama Tradc enire, Bus Stand Road, Biia$pur (C.G.) ‘ AN / Versus Y, 4RESP0EDENTS i. ‘ kh Nazir, S/‘o. Shskh Basher Mohamad, Qwner cd about 40 yoars, R/o. village angaia, Police Station Civii Lines, Tehsii d District, Bilaspur (C.G.) Efivef 2. ima Ramjan Beag Alias Shafiik, S/o. 1:22 Shekzmdar Beag, aged about 54 ars, Rio‘ Nay-a Para, Phool Chowk, 'ce Station— Goal Bazaar, Tehsii 85 tt. Raipur (C.G.) Ciaimants '3. Baiaram 'Kesharwani, S/o. Late Shri R Prasad aghuveer Prasad Keharwani, aged about 40) years‘ Lo 4. um, qPema Kesharwani, Wk). Slni Buiareun Keshalwaui, agcd aboL‘ii'34 years Both respondent No. 3 and 4, R/o. Behind Jempat Pnwaly School, Mangala, village & Post Mangaia, Police Station Civil Lines, Te hsil 8g Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) XI-HC-22 3am, whim—cg,W mm m‘QQQRDW: \g\ $2066; 200 mmmm‘ga WMEWW aswm 'l‘ms insurance ap Vehicle Act, 1988 is (iire‘ passai by the learned Tribunai, Bilaspur Where' sum of Rs. 2,29,500/~ parents of (ieceased SWap: a motor vehicla healing rt respondent No. 1 and driv The only ground pea} undsr Section 1'73 of the Motor :t'ed against the award dated 10-8-2006 lat Additionai Motor Accident Claims 3y the 1ean1ed Tribunal has awarded a to respondents No. 3 andl4, who are 1i1 Keshamani who died on a? - l -2006 in ‘gistration No. NLP. 63‘Bi9249 owned by an by respondent no. 2. ‘sed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the app cation was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Tribunal assessed notional income Rs. 15,000/— per ...'.............................mnn... ..... ........ ..... .... 011th of the deceased who was 13 years old and applied multiplie of l5, and passed the award Without deducting 1/3f& amount ‘om his income which he would have otherwise spent towards hs own expenses had he been alive. ‘ é claimants submitted that the amount awarded is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju 1—)evi and another—v- Musafir I’aswan and others (2005 AQJ‘ 99 r/ . $0} Where in identical case, for the death of 13 years old boy, by applying multiplier of 15 without deducting any amount from his income towards personal expenses, the amount has been assessed, l have heard the learned counsel for the parties. l'have perused the record as also the impugned award. . L a/ .‘ 1129’ W) \ M On the other hand, learned counsel for promising student who secured nlst class marks throughout. Thus considering the overall Circumstances and considering that the impugned award is based on the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, no interference is called for in the impugned award. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable do be and is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Jude dismissed. g\ XI-HC—22 m M.,,QL.C9 Mo‘ai)gJ/gpoé 200 ............'.;‘....... ............W. ........ .......:............ & $&&$ ;m%naamK¥%a. , VH‘BL‘ : %3T%wan%w .a. A it is .true that the appiication has been E661 uncier Section 163(A)4,of.the MotOr Vshicles Act, 1988 by the ciaih1ants, howwer it is not a case‘whsre the deceased himself was driving the Vehicie or was responsible in any manner for'his death. Themforev, simply because the appiicat'ion s been med under Section 163(A. of the Motor Vehicles 19 it Act, 8, cannot he argued inlat it was k incumbent upon the Trib a1 to adhere to Scheduie H of Section 163(A) of the Act. The im gned award is based on the judgment of Maniu Devi (supra), even other Wise, looking to the certificates of the deceased adduced ’ evidence before the Tribunal, it is observed that the deceas d was student of Class 6 and was a