IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C|No. ^2- /2011 APPELLANTS ^-^ ,^-:'^"';,..<^\ ^y^-<^l '^-' \^ SE^PONDENTS MAHENDRA SAHU, SON OF (NOT MENTIONED), AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PATORA, DISTRICT DURG, C.G (DRIVER) 2. MOTILAL SAHU, SON OF ASHA SAHU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DUNDERA, SUBHASH CHOWK, DISTRICT DURG, C.G. (OWNER) VERSUS 1, SMT. SARASVATI BAI, WIFE OF LATE MUI?ARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. (CLAIMANT) BHAGAWAT PRASAD, SON OF LATE MUR^RI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. (CLAIMANT) 3-^KUMARI BHARTI, DAUGHTER OF LATE MURARI, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. (CLAIMANT) MINOR: REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN (MOTHER) SMT. SARASVATI BAI, W/0 LATE MURARI. Aqcd S^ •-/«.<•> y d < 4,^'KUMARI ANJU, DAUGHTER OF LATE MURARI, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. ^ 3-s ycc^^ (CLAIMANT) f u f MINOR: REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN (MOTHER) SMT. SARASVATI BAI, W/0 LATE MURARI. ^JS; KUMARI DAUGHTER RESHAMA, OF LATE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'bleShri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. M.A.fClNo.62of2011 APPELLANTS Mahendra Sahu and another. Versus RESPONDENTS - Smt. Sarasvati Bai and others. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counse! forthe appetlants. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondents Nc>. 1 to5. ORALORDER (07/04/2011) Following oral order of M. Quddusi. J. the Court was passed by This appeal has been fifed against the impugned award dated 9/11/2010 passed by the VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 40/2009 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,29,500/- to the ctaimants to be paid by the appellant/owner. (2) Brief facts of the case, as per the version of the ctaimants, are that claimants are widow and chiidren of deceased Murari. On 20/01/2009 deceased Murari went to Utai from Viliage Aauri for purchasing the pump and parts of the boring machine and he was retuming back in Minl Auto bearing registration No. C.G. 07/C/8115. As soon as he reached under the bridge between village Patora and Selud, then non-applicant No.1 driving the Mini Auto rashly and negligently dashed with the unknown jeep, as a result of which Murari received grievous injuries and he died during treatment. He used to earn Rs. 3250/- per month by doing the work of Mason. Claimante have claimed compsnsation ofRs. 12,52,000/-. (3) Since the claim petition was fited under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act, the ctaimants would not be required to plead or es'tablish that -^- the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglector default ofthe owner ofthe vehicle concerned or of other person as provided in sub-Section (2) of Section 163-A of the Act, therefore the Tribunal has not considered the negligence part and assessed income ofthe deceased as Rs. 30.QOO/- per annum though it was alteged that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,250/- per month i.e. Rs. 39.000/- per year which was less than 40,QQO/- per annum as provided in the II S&iedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal calcutated the income of deceased as Rs. 30,000/- reduced 1/3 of the total income for personal and living expenses and calculated the loss of dependency aftsr apptying the multiprier of16 to Rs.20,000/- vvhich came to Rs.3,20,000/-. The fainerat oq^enses, toss Qf consortium and loss of estate have been granted as Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5.000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively. (4) The Tribunat has calculated the amount of compensation strictly in accordance with Schedute II ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, thers is no scope of interference therein. (5) In view of the above, there is no foree in this appea! and the same fails and is dismissed accordingly. (6) No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '<~l9-