T :F XI-HG—78 'T^T ^ii^Krt^, ^ti1<H^<o, f®i<ni<-i^< W^ <FW^""^-^-^"""^^""""-^^ 20 3TI^T TR^ (TE?t35f^sT) ^^T'^'f^TW '<T8H 37T^?T $n^|ch ^TTW^f^T 3n^?T APP|:LLAISJT&- -4- CLAIMANTS 2. 3. 4. RESPONDENTS: -Versu 1. 2. (Appeal under Section 17| Divisfon Bench:- Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. <1 154-2008:. , cni^t^^li 'Hm^rf ^f 'fex^ <pai^l< .^3ffiTH3n^?r Smt. Khatija Boi, agod obout 32 year, wd/o late Idrish Bhai, Shakina, aged 09 years, D/o late Idrish Fatima, aged 07 years, D/o late Idrish Aliazgar Bhai, aged 05 years, s/o late Idrish Appeliant no.2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian mother appellant no.1 Khatija Bai. Al! R/o Aamanaka, behind Petrol Pump, P.S. Aamanaka, Distrjct Raipur (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Mahto, aged about 28years, s/o Shivdayal Mahto, R/o D.S.H. Nagri, P.S. Sihava, Tah. Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) S.S. Hawale, aged about 55 years, s/o Shridhar Shankar Mahto, R/o D.S.H. Nagri, P.S. Sihawa, Tah. Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) oftheMotorVehidesAct, 1988) 4- XI-HC—78 ^TT^I^'f^TW ^T^TT ^TRW 9h*lW T^r ^it<4id^ ^til^^Ko, [®i<ni<ri^< HWWt »t*11<»> ^ 200 ^Tr^TF '^3K ( yi^^) ¥^<TTW^f?^3^T Shri RX Masjumdar, counsel| L.C. Bhadoo. J. The claimants who are wife an accident on 16-6-2005, have Motor Vehicles Act for enhancemeifrt the 12th Addjtional Motor Accident 4 No.43/2006. Brief facte necessary for th^ 2005 Idrish Bhai (since deceased) motorcycle bearing No.C.G.-04/04^ Chipalipara Nagri, a dumper be^ring motorcycle, v^iich was being driven| as a result of which Idrish Bht spontaneously. The matter was T^| investigation, charge sheet for cpm< and 304-A ofthe f.P.C. was filed at filed a claim before the Tribunal witt1 38 years at the time of his death. Hf a Supemsor and was earning R^ dependent on him. Notice of the clt but none appeared, therefore, learr^ed the age of the deceased mujtiplier 4 of wife of the deceased, income of| permonth. Learned counsel for the been applied. The Tribunal ought Gr>i<((<n<fl^ 'tTW^ff ^* fs^ <P»it^i< ^'3tf?TH3TT^?T for the appellants. ^nd children of late Idrish Bhaj, who died in pr^ferred this appeal under Section 173 ofthe of the compensation amount awarded by tlaims Tribunai (FTC), Raipur, in claim case disposal of this appeal are that on 16-6- ^/as coming from Sihava to Dhamtari on his 11, atabout 10.30 a.m. when he was near No.M.V.H./8961 dashed against the |bythe driver in rash and negligent manner, ^i sustained grievous injuries and died Iported in the Police Station Sihava. After (nission of offence under Sections 279, 337 ^ainst the driver. The appellants/claimants averments that idrish Bhai was aged about ^ was working jn the Bore-well, Dhamtari as |.4,000/- per month. The appellants were ^im petition was jssued to the respondents, Tribuna! proceeded ex-parte. Looking to ^f 16 was applied and considering eyidence |the deceased was assessed at Rs.3,000/- ap^ellants argued that multiplier has wrongly (o have applied mu!tJplier of 17. He further XI-HC—78 "TF ^oEf ^lHtd^, ^tl1<4^<o, f®j<yll^li< WHdl (h*1ich ^ 200 3 3TT^T?^ f^tl1°h 'cT^TT 3TR?T ^RW .:.< Barve + sn^r-q^wc^ii^^) 'S^TTW^f^T ^^ ;h Idrish Bhai was earning Rs.4,000/- per therefore, income has been assessed on submjtted that at the time of de^th month from his Bore-wetl Companj the lower side. Having heard learned coun^el for the appellants, we have perused the record. In para-9 of the award, t^e Tribunal has held that only wife of the deceased Khatija Bai has stated ttijat her husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The owner ofthe compan^ witness to depose before the Triqunal that how much monthly income was being made to the deceased nor arfe the ordinary drcumstances, the Tr(bunal assessed Rs.100/- per day, thereby total amount of Rs.3,000/- has beei the material availabie on record, As far as muStiplJer is concen at the time of his death and as per correct multjpjier has been appljed expenses, Soss of estate, ioss o fiiing of the daim petition, therefon reasonable. In the clrcumstances, we do is liabj^ to be dismissed and ?t is he Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Gbl^id^l'i 'RTR^f ^ ft^ <f^^i< ^3tfim3TT^?r has not been examined who was the best income certificate was filed. Therefore, in assessed as monthly income. Looking to /e are of the considered opinionthat the assessment of the Tribunal is just |and reasonable and Is not arbitrary §n any manner. |ed, the deceased was aged about 38 years |he 2nd Schedule appended to the M.V. Act, ^nd we do not find any fault in that. Apart from that, sufficient amount has 9een awarded under the heads of funeral consortjum, iove and affection. Jn all, Rs.4,04,000/- has been awarded wi<h interest @ 7.5% peryearfrom the date of award passed by the Tribunal is justand <iot find any substance in this appeal, same ^ydismjssed. [ if' Sd/- 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge