IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (0 No-^ of2010 APPELLANTS :1 Smt. Kamla Pandey, W/o Late Ramashankar Pandey, aged about 40 years, \v. ..o...-^ ^%6 w^ ?':..<\' ^ ^ Suraj Pandey, S/o Late aged Late aged ^ ^•' -,. .^^ ^ .•'0 Ramashankar Pandey, about 20 years, 3, Chandhi Pandey, D/o / Ramashankar Pandey, about 17years, Ku. Rajni Pandey, D/o Late Ramashankar Pandey, aged about 14 years, p. Ku. Shiksha Parifcy, D/o Late / Ramashankar Pandey, aged about 10years, Appellant No. 3 to 5 are minor through Legai Guardian Mother Smt. Kamla Pandey, W/o Late Ramashankar Pandey, aged about 40 years, A!l R/o Village-Doudpur, Post- Meerganj, District-Jaunpur(U.P-) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^" 3. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Samaskal Singh Nazmi Agency, Khaparganj, Bilaspur(C.G.) Nazmi Agency Partner M.H. Kapasi, Khaparganj, Bilaspur (C.G.) ' Branch Manager, Nationai Insurance Company, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRSBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT VALULATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL Rs.21,70,000/- Rs.4,46,000/- Rs.2,25,000r wiy.yjl In compliance of Rule 87 of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules and Order, the appetlant respectfully submitted that in present case, they have only challenging the multiplier and the amount of dependency, tbus the valuation of appeal reduced to Rs. 2,25,000/-.^^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT.1988 ~~^1^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MACNo.391 OF 2010 Appeilants Respondents Smt. Kamla Pandey & Others Versus Ashok Kumar Singh & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHiCLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Smt. Anusuiya Rajput, Advocate for appeflants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9th day ofApriI, 2010) Heard on admission. 1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 08.12.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon, (for short 'Tribunat') in ciaim case No. 39/09 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 4,46,0007- has been awarded to the appellants/claimants against the respondents alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : i. On 26.10.2008, Ramashankar Pandey (since deceased) while coming from Bombay to Raipur by Mahendra & Mahendra Pickup (Bolero) bearing registration No. MH 02-ATR-458, met with an accident with Truck bearing registration No. CG 10-ZB-1672 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. li. The claimants i.e. unfortunate widow, major son and three minor daughter of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of MV Act ciaiming Rs. 21,70,000/- ascompensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. iii. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held the respondent No. 1 i.e driver of the Truck responsible for the said accident; assessed the income of the<jeceased at Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses ofthe deceased; holding deceased was of the age of 45 years at the time of accident, applied multjplier of 13, assessed the amount of compensation towards ioss of dependency at Rs. 4,16,000/- and further awarded Rs. 5,000/-for loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses, thus awarded total sum of Rs. 4,46,000/-alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application. Smt. Anusuiya Rajput, iearned counsel appearing for the appeilants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of it towards persona! expenses ofths deceased and thus has erred in awarding low compensation. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appeilants and perused the order impugned. A bare perusal of Para 18 of the award would reveal that even the income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 4000/- per month without their being any cogent & clinching evidence in this regard. In the absence of any definite evidence, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased in terms of Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Normaily 1/3rd of compensation is being deducted towards personal expenses ofthe deceased. --.?' ;.'%^."'.; '..:.:..A "~^. ^-"'^ \ %JW^i Sahu ^ 111 "IIN"' 6. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality warranting interference of this court. The awards is just and reasonabie. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge