\'^ HIGHC^URTOFCHHATTISGARH/VTBILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCM CORAM: HON'BLESHRIR»JEEVGUf>TA.C.J.& HON'BLBSHRiRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR.J. s • -?' ADRetlants KIajmants ReSDOndents Nbn-aOpIicants M.A.fONo. 435 of 2010 1. Smt Pushpa Bai wd/o late Makhan La!,age54 , 2/ Ku. Prabhad/o lateMa •;27. : •••:..' '':.-.:;.-'.\:,:^^ 3. Kaushal KumarS/o late Makhan Lal, :;-'; ••:.age-30':-.:-;. ,•.:•' 1':. ,-^:':; ', , 4. Mahendra Kumar, S/o late Makhan La!,age26 Aii R/o: 13A/13, North, \^sundhra Nagar, BhilaiS, Tah.&Dis.i:. Durg VERSUS ::::—:1:.;:.'.;;.'^: 1. Pawan KumaF S/o, Btr^ailus^ through Syrendra Sihg|^;R%?s^ N6.29/6, SatieliApaEtmieHt.plotNo. 17^, Gandhi Dham^ ^ Gram), Kutehh(Guji-at). i Driver6fVetiicleNo;©J/12/Y/6976 2. Surendra Singh s/oKapuKsingh, r/0. Shopl N@; 29/B; Saheli Apartment. Plot 17'-p9; Oandtii Dham, (GandBi Gram), KHtchh^ujraf) -Qwner6fVehicleNo.GJ/12A76976 3;; IVIaFiagera.C.I.C.I. l-onfibai-d^eneral ^ lr^ranee;Compahy tAd.l.al^C^ Shbpping | Complex, G.E. Road, :Raipur.,:,^: ^. ^: '•'•'••'•^r^:'^':'-.'.^?'.'1^ , 1 ]nsurei'c)f^MicleNb.s©m,2j^9^ ^RealU/^ll^^tMMfotoiiiteliiclesAGtlSSS »f a II1II RUIII I!it3 IBH €1 ^: —.1 Present: Shri AmiyaKant Thwari , counsel for the appeltants. ORDER ::'.:' ^.. ''•,•• • {14th June, 2010) The following order? of the Court was passed by Rajeey Gupta, C.J. Leamed counselforthe appellants isheaFdonadmission. 2) The appellants are seetung enhancement of the compensstion awarded &y ths 8 Additiona! M Claims Tribunal, Durg vide awanj dated 20^ January, 2010 passedjn ClaimCaseNo.79/20Q9. 3) As againstthe compensatjoh of Rs.57,17,912/- claimed by the appellants/Glaimants, ynfortunate widow, un-mamec! major daughter andmajorsonsof deceased Makhanl-al byfiljnga claim petition under Seotton 166 of thS Motor ^/ehietes'Aet for his deathln the motoraccidenton 17.02.2009, theTritiunalawarded atotal sum of Rs.5,84,640/- as compensation alongwith interest @61%perannumfromthedateofthefilingofthectaimpetition till the date ofactual payment. 4) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemeritly argued thatthe Trjbynal tias erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,84,640/- only. 5) The Triburial on the basis of the evidenee led by the claimarits about ttie jncome Qf 3the deeeased, assessed his incomeatRs.2,71,092/-perannum. ••.,•.':,^^^ <. „}' ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 6) By using the multiplier of 5 anct after adjusting the amount of Income Tax deducted iTom the satary of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to ttie claimants at Rs,12,45,060/-.Bydeducting1/3oftheaboyeamQunttowards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the eompensation was worked oyt to Rs.8,30,040/-, By further adjusting the sum of Rs.2,63,900/- received by the claimants under .Workmen's Compensation Act, the compensation payable 1:6 Ihe Glaimants was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,66,140/-. rBy awardjng furtMer sum of Rs.18,500/- under other heads, the Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,84^40/- as compensation to the claimants. :::- ': : ' . 1: .';:::: '•1 ' :' ::. •;1'': .. . 7)GonsideringthatcleceasedMakhanLalwasagedabQ!Ut57 years and was tp retire fron"! seryice bn completing 60 years within 3-4 years; hisjob was hot pensionable;j:he clairnants had already received a sum of Rs;2,63,900/-as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act,we are satisfied that,the i compensation of Rs.5,84,640/- cannot be termed as inadequate so asto warrant enhancemeht in thisappeal. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope ftir enhancement of •theeompensation awardedbytheTribunat. 9) The appeal filed by thei appellants/claimants for enhanGement of the compereiatioh therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is Hereby dismissed summarify. Sd/- CMef Justice .Sd/-.-..:1 •:- R.N.Charidrakar Judse ^ 3^-^ .^. ^. ..•• ..-•^J^"1 ^ -^..J:&;^