BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l M,A^o. M ./2006-^°'7 APPELLANTS ^•\ < y^ ,^«-^^^p ^- ^^. RESPONDENTS. Laxmi Bai widow of Kheduram Yadav, aged 35 years. Indarbati widow of Patruram Yadav, aged 60 years. Ku. Yashoda, D/o Late Kheduram Yadav, agaed 19 years. Sanjay Kumar,S/oLate Kheduram Yadavaged 17years. Ku. Nirmala Yadav, D/o Late Kheduram Yadav, aged 13 years. Ku. Jayanti, D/o Late Kheduram Yadav, aged 11 years. 7. ^ Ku. Hemlata D/o Late Kheduram Yadav, aged 09 years. ^ -K&^'lo-f -fha-^^ 4^ r4<3^yry b°Ji^l^'^^£^^>''v^^io^o^. All are resTdent ofVillage Anjbra, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^\ Parasnath, S/o Hansraj Yadav, Aged 43 years, resident of Ramdhari Yadav Ki Chal, Nalpada, Copper Badi Ke pass, Post Sandijbagh, Thana Copper Badi, Distt. Thane, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Through-Royal Transport Co. Shivdi Kolibada, Mumbai, Thana Shivdi, Distt. Thane (Mumbai) M/s Royal Transport Company, Plot 283, Shah Diwan Develper, Mahim Village Paaldhar, Distt. Thane, Mumbai (Mah.) 3. Branch Manager, ^ Branch-Thane, Through - Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Krishna Complex, First Floor, Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION^S OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^ HIQWGOURrO(s€?HHAtTtS<3N!tH:BJLASPVR Division Bench Coram: Hon^eShriH.I-,Dattu,CJ& Hon'Ne Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J MISC. APPEAL (CINO. 41 OF 2007 ^PPELLANTS: SESJPON8ENTS: Versus l-aQ<miBaiandottiers. Parasnath and ©friers. Pres^nt: 8hriJitendraOyFta,coynsei^fo Noneforotherrespondents. :01%AI,_ORDiR , - (Passedon1SmPebruary, Thefollowingoratorder^^^ ;2007) passed byiVijay Kvmar Shrivastava,J. This is "an appeat under SeGtion 173 of the Motor VehieSes Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act, 1988") against the award dated 09/06^2006 passed by Jst^^^^^ A^ (henceforth, "the Tribunai'^ in Ctaim Case No. ^2^2006, for enhancement of comDensation. 2) The factuat mafrix of the case, in brief, is that on 14/01^004 at .s about 10.00 p.m. when KJieduram Yadav (stnc?e deceased) ricitng his vehicte Hero Puch bearing No. CG.07SP|f5542 was coming from /':"•.'••''.'" '. ":'1"'. '.':. /:'—.•..1 "'.' .\.-.;.., .'.•" . '•. .. • -. "! Tedesara to village Aryora, resj^ndent No^ MH-04/B©/©102in a rash and negligent mannerdashed ttie Hero Puch. Xheduram Yadaysystained injyrJes^^^^^a^ ..a:!':;:;', •:;1\^^^ • 1:1.' l': :1-:'::': 'i ...''.'<.^ /' . ...•".1 •::. ~ who are legaj/.repNsentatives of:the l<deceased^ fSted : ani^ a(>plicafion? under'; Section 1(S6^ ;the;'Act,;-^988:jfo^^^ •'^ wl^ respondents ;wf^^ai^\.driver, :cwn^ Ifi.e^: w::iv s^&^sKii^S!Sfft- ^- -2- * Respondents No.1 anct 2 remained ex parte i in ttie case. Howeyer, respondent No.3 contested the claim. j 3) Learned Tribunal after appreciating frie evidence adduced by the appeiiants, vide impugned award ailowed compensation of Rs.3,36,600/- under various heads as beiow: a) Loss of dependency Funeral expenses Consortium b) c) d) l.ossofexpectancy ofSife. Rs.2,81,600/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. S.OOO/- Rs. 35,00©^ ••;^... e) lossofestate Total Rs. 5,000/- ^s. 3,38^ 4) Learned counsel forthe appeijants contended that iearned TribunaS erred In deducting 1/3Ed of Income from the j IncQme of the deceased. Further, urged that towards funeral ©xpenses Rs.10,000/- has been .l'1" . :—;,.',,•. ^^arded which is on iower sidle, so also amouftt awarded on other heads < is notjust and proper-7'-^ , . - ; ? 5) • Laxmi (PW/1) in her evldence ^tated that her husband was earning Rs.2200/- per month. According to Ex.P/7 Sssued by empSoyer totat emolumente of ttie deceased was Rs.2124/-, therefore, learned Tribuna! acceptedthe monthly income of the deceasedi Rs.2200/-. For assessing ioss of income, he adopted the method in accordance with Sheduie 2 of Sectlon 163-A of the Act, 1988. Learned Tribunal after adjustlng 1^3rd .fowards: deceased: own^expenditufe, apptyingj^ finding ahd aGcordingly aSlowed compensation of Rs.2,81,600/- towards •y''' dependency^^- On.some ofthe.; other heads;-h^^^ amount adrYiss^sble, even he aitowed com ^ ••^l^ -^- .c:»: Raju expectancyoflife.lnabsenGeofanyattac^ ,inclJned,at'th1si|uncture,.tp^step^ deductlon of 1/3rt ^m ^e 3^ of deceased is conceme^t that ts according to Schectule 2 of Sectjon 163-Ai of the Act, 1988, ©ven €rtherwise,onthe1^cteandcir^^^ isreasonabteandiegai. (6) We are of the considered view tiat the award passed by the Tribunal does not cali forany interfere appeai being devoid of sybstarioe desew^ accordingiydismissedsniirnine.Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Jusdce V.K. Shrivastava •4; ^k \;,