' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH fC.G.) MISC. APPEAL fC) N0.^ f2 OF 2^08- ©-^ APPELLANTS NON-CLAIMANTS 1. Tigali Son of Punau Gond,. aged about not known, Resident of <;" Village Dev Kirari, Police Station Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Driver of Tractor No. C.G.- 10/Z.G.-2114 and Trolley No. C.G.-10/2.G.-2115. Sant Kumar Dhruv Son of Bhulau 2. ^r\ w.fsga'- ^\^e '.-•/ .1-^ ,' rt^'sA V5 Gond, aged about not known, Resident of Village Dev Kirari, Police Station Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Owner of Tractor No. C.G.- 10/Z.G.-2114 and Trolley No. C.G.-10/Z.G.-2115. VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Ramkumar Satnami Son of Late Ramji, aged about 35years; 2. Ku. Sangeeta D/o Ramkumar Satnami, aged about 14 years; 3. Ravishankar Son of Ramkumar Satnami, aged about 10 years; 4. Shivshankar Son of Ramkumar Satnami, aged about 06 years; Claimant No.2 to 4 are Minors, through their natural guardian father Ramkumar Satnami, Son of C5 Late Ramji Satnami,aged about 35 years. All resident of Village Kirari Godhi, Police Station Bilha, ^-- Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFrTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 313 OF 2009 Tigall & Another -C! Ramkumar Satnami & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICL.EACT, N.K. Aaarwal. J.S 'resent : Shri MK Bhaduri, Advocate for appellants. Shri Sameer Singh, Advocate for non-applicants. rth Heard on admission. 1. The instant appeal is directsd by the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10/ZG-2114 & Trolley No. CG 10/ZG-2115, against the award dated 08.02.2008, passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.58/2008, whereby and whereunder total sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded for the death of Sudhara Bai in favour of claimants aaainst the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.07.2006 at about 11.30 AM v/hile the deceased was going on the main road of Bilha, was dashed by the said Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10/ZG-2114 & Trolley No. CG 10/2G-2115 and pursuant to the injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she died. f--f. 6. The claimants, who are nephew and son & daughter of nephew, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act, 1988'), ciaming Rs.22,96,000/- as compensation against the appellants. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material avaiiable on record, awarded total sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants. Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the claimants being second and third category of legal representative of deceased cannot ciaim compensation under section 166 of MV Act. He would further submit that the award of Rs. 20,000/- on the Head of Love and Affection is on the higher side and same is not awardabie under Second Schedule of the MV AcS, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Per contra, Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Vi'ouid submit that in view of recent decision of Division Bench of this court passed in case of Premlata & Others v. Rasui Khan & Others, reported in 2008 (2) CGLJ-378 (DB) and in case of Smt. Puni Bai & Others v. Smt. Manjushri Chatterjee & Others in Misc. Appeai (C) No. 761 of 2007, decided on 11.09.2009, for the death which occurred in the year, 2006, the notional income ought to have been taken bythe Tribunal at Rs. 36,000/- and even by taking dependency as 50 percent and by applying multiplier of five, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 90,000/- and by adding in this amount Rs. 2000/- for funeral .-»- .»y. Sahu expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estates, it would come to Rs. 94,500/- which is more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal, and in view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parities, perused the pleadings and documents and award impugned. 8. In view of recent decision of Division Bench of t'nis Court in the matters of Premlata and Smt. Puni Bai (Supra), the notional income in the year 2006 ought to have been taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 36,000/- per annum, for computing the amount of compensation. By taking into consideration Rs. 36,000/-, the compensation would come to Rs. 90,000;'- which is even more than the amount what has been awarded by the Tribunal without addlng any further sum on other Heads. 9. Shri MK Bhaduri also failed to point out as to how a person who is class II heir of the deceased in the absence of any legal heir under class 1 is not entitled to claim compensation, therefore, this contention raised by Shri Bhaduri that ciaimants are not entitled to ciaim compensation, has also no merit and the same is rejected. 10. !n view of the above, in the considered opinion of thls court, the amount awarded by the Tribunai is not on higher side rather it is on lower side, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is liableto be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- N.K. Agrawa!