y H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISG'ARH, BILASPUR M.A.fC.SNo. 109/2009 DB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HOrBLB SHRJ JUST2CB T.P. SHARMA, JJ. ^o^ 4^ APPBLLANTS (Applicasits] 1. Dwarika ' @ Bhaiidaii s/o Saliasram, aged about 53 years, Cast-Suaivanshi 2. Ku.Uarmila D/o Dwaiika @ Bhaiidari, aged about 17 years, Cast-Suar^aiislii 3. Ku. Pramila D/o Dwaiika @ Bhaudari, aged about 16 years, Cast-Suaivaiishi 4. Saiitosh s/o Dwarika @ Bhaiidari, aged about 14 yeai's, Cast- Suaivaiishi 5. Virenda s/o Dwarika @ Bhaaidad, aged about 12 years, Cast- vSuaivaashi 6. Ku. Tijaiimati D/o Dwarika @ Bhandari, aged about 10 years, Cast-Suaivaiishi 7. Indal Kuniar s/o Dwaiika @ Bhaiidaii, aged aboiit 9 years, Cast-Suaivaashi. AppeUaiit No. 2 to 7 are in.nior mid they are represented by tiieir fatlier nanxely- Dwarika @ Bhaiidari s/o Saliasrasii, aged about 53 yeai's AU R/o vfflage Chaiidipara (Mohalla Uraiha), Police Station & Talisil Paingarh, District Janjgir Champa(CG) Wersus (Noa-applieasitsi 1. Dilip Kumm' Taiide, s/o Kanhaiyalal Tan.de, aged about 32 years, R/o viUage Maagla, P.S. Civil Liae, Bilaspur, Talisil & Distiict Bilaspur, CG. (Driver of Vehicle beailiig No. CG <,' »^-^~" ^ ^^ ^ '•.':^ -i^ MAC 109/2009 10G-0283) 2. Piio.cipal s/o Mahrshi Vidha Maudir, Maiigla, Bflaspur, Distiict Bflaspur, CG (Registered Society) (Owner of Vehicle beai-mg No, CG 10G-0283) 3. Braach Manager, I.C.I.C.I. LoDibard General Insuraiice Compaiiy Ltd,, Jenith House, Keshavrao Khande Marg, Mahalaxmi, Muiiibai. Through Braiich Manager, I, C.I. C, I,, LoBibard Genei-al Insiiraiice Compaay Ltd,, V,.R. Plaza, in front of Shiikant Varma Marg, Liiik Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distiict BUaspur, CG MISC,_APPEAL,U/S,173,OF,THB MOTORVEmCLESACT Appearaiiee; Shri R,K. Jaia, counsel for flie appellazits, ORAL.ORDBR (29.01.2009) The followiag order of this Court is passed by J. Heaixi on adinission. The appellaiits/claimants have liled tliis appeal fbr enhaiicement of fhe amount of compensatiou awai'ded in Claim Case No. 3/2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur on 20th October, 2008. The appellaiits/claiaiaiits liled a claira petition under Section 166 offlie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account ofdeatli of deceased-Bono @ vShivnai'ayaii, wlio' clied ui tlie m.otor accident on 18.10.2007, Tlie appeUants/clamiaats ai'e tlie faflier, brotliers and sisters oftlie deceased. Ip-.' "" :T'^., If ^w- K 1 ^^.,i,. j '•^. ^-L ^IAC 109/2009 The appeUaiits pleaded ttiat flie deceased was workiiig as a Mason aiid he was earaiag Rs. 150-200 per day. They claiined compensation of Rs.16,75,000/- on account of death of fhe deceased. The tribunal vide pai'a 19 offlie impugned award, afler assessiiig tiie evidence of flie claiiaaiits adduced to prove tlie iiicome of tlie deceased, assessed tliat tlie deceasecl was eamiag Rs.100/- per day aiid Rs. 36.000/- per year. Siace ttie clamiants were tiie fatlier, brotliers aiid sisters of the deceased, tlie tribunal deteriiiiiied tlieu' dependency to the extent of l/3rd froni the said mcome of tlie deceased, wliich came to Rs.12,000/- p.a. Tlie tribunal applied multipUer of 17 aiid deteiTauied flie aiuount of coinpensation of Rs.2,04,000/-. By addnig a furflier sum of Rs.7,000/- iinder tlie otlier heads tiie tribunal, deteiTOinied the total amount of compensation as Rs.2,11,000/-. The tiibunal also awarded interest @ 6 % p.a. from flie date of liLiiig of tiie claioi petitiou ie. 10.01.2008 till its reali2;ation. LeaiTied counsel for the appeUants ai'gues tliat tlie deductioii of 2/3rd froni flie iacoBie oftlie deceased was not proper. We have heai'd leanied counsel for tlie appeUaiits at length mid have also perused tlie records of Uie Miscellaneous Appeal. In tlie matter of D-^nat L^ui^ Machcsd^ ^thers Vs. L. Rswindra and ^thers^ (1998j 8 C^urt Cases 633, where tiie clamiaiits were pai'eiits aiid unmai'ried sister aiicl were dependaiit on the iiicome ofthe deceased, tfie Apex Court held tliat tlien' dependency would be to tlie extent of 1/3, as tlie deceased would liave spent tlie rest of 2/3 amount of his eaiiiiags on his owu family which he would have raised axid on Iriinsetf. Iii view of tlie above, we do not fiiid aiiy iIlegaUty iii 2/3rd deduction made by fhe Claims tdbunal, where tiie deceased wa.s aged about 22 years aiid was unmaiTied. In tlie facts aiid cn'cumstances of tlie case, we clo not fuid aiiy scope for enhaiicement of tlie amount of coisipensation ^warded to tlie appellaiits/claimaiits. 7^>- ^•^.^ MAC 109/2009 No other ground was raised. The appeal has no merits. The same desei^es to i3e aiid is accordiiigly, dismissed at flie m.0tion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge sunita