"111 li 113 <s (S>l9f*|b'?t)tbkth 1$^U£ OOZ<l±tt.................................... tblktB lOhlk Ss^lWy^l^^l<n 'bOIMb^baP\ 8Z-OHII ^^. 1S ejqsiifij ejpua.iiqa uqg -UOH pjeMe :qousg uojsiAia J6^U9Uia3U84U9JOjT886lPV^9Pi4^ Z9690ZO'9'0'ON ©|oAQ jo^o^ 8|0!4©A P jejnsu; (90) Bjna-pu}sia liejjug tesnou jeMo^j 'jeqiueuQ je>{>in ejiqoiuo^nv pefojd P ?uo4 ui ijajnsu| eipui MON JeSeuejAl leuojSjAiQ s^i Aq p©iuesa.id©jpsiiiun Auediuoo souejnssv eipui M©NSMI Z969 9-ZO •O'O-ON 9|OAO JOIOIAI 9|Ojq9A P J9UMQ (90) BjnQ-puisia pue ijstjei (ie|!4g 'esnoH luei Aefues MON 'Z-dtueo 'ejedepejeqs P tuepisej 'e^sjeAd -x ©ie-1 0/3 'jeiuea •>i -snsjeA- (90) Sjna-pj4S;a $je6eN !ei!49 t9^op99 IVS '°N JolJ^nt) P ^uepjsej |EV sje©Aoz peBe 'SBQ nqqejd ">i o/s '^©UIA•X sjeeA ^g peBe 'BAAejeAd ->j o/s isea nqqeJd ">1 sj^eAg^eBe (sea 'ntjqejg ->i O/AA 'eLUi.ueuiey •>l •1013 ATJo^Zl uoiP9S Jspun jssaav SJ.NVOnddV-NON /siNaaNOdssy SlNVIAIinO /lNV^^^^ddV 8002/FZn'ONloPl m 16^U£ttl^jK: <4 >.l)S^lfjK^^J ^ |COklk^|^0]bl(b is^uepy^^m^ ifclhtElS^Uelt&^ cbll^y 10? I^IK^ *<l*iwi ^''TT^ ^BET »«1«10<4,U>Ti1tl<l<»,Rcl)l'<1^<< 3TT^97 q3PF (4^i^<s|<g) Wt200 OT^^TcpTf^Tfcp ?T2n3TT^^T?CTt<?) 03-11-2008:- Shri C.R. Sahu,counsel fc Heard on !.A. No.1,appli appeal, as the same has been pn After duly considering th^ contents of the appllcation, which is a!so supported by the affidavit of ^ condoning the delay of 238 daj application is ailowed and deiay 11 respectlveiy, filed Ciaim Petition| Vehicles Act, 1988 (for sh<^ Rs.12,08,000/- for the death of] about 3:00 In the night in a motor] registration number CG-07-G-6C <pi<iio<nTi Hprot'^" fel-3xRi^iK ^3Tf^T3IT^$T |r the appellants. |cation for condonation of delay in filing this ^ferred with a deiay of 238 days. ppeliant No.1-Smt K. Ratnamma. v/e are satisfied that the appellants hav^ been able to estabiish sufficient ground for \/s in flllng the appea! and accordingly, the \i fiilng the appeal is condoned. Also heard on admission. Appeilants, \¥ho v^ere p^rents and brother of deceased K. Praneet No.18/06 under Section 163-A of the Motor rt 'the Acf), claiming compensation of said K. Praneet, who died on 23.7.2003 at vehicle accident involving motorcycle bearing ^7 owned & driven by respondent No.1 and Insured by respondent No.2 for tt~|e relevant period. Case of the claimants bef<^ day and time, respondent No| negiigentEy, whereas, the deceas| rlder when the same met with i motorcycje and died. It was. furj being dependents of the dece^ Rs.12.08.000/- undervarious healds. re the Claims Tribunal was that on the fatefui 1 was driving his motorcycie rashiy and sd was sltting in the said motorcycle as pillion cddent as a result K. Praneet fell from the :her pleaded that the deceasedwas earning Rs.5,500/- per month as Agent cjf Sachdeva Sales Agency and the daimants sed are entitied for totai compensation of Itl l1ii! ^oET^ j^| |c6^, yalxi<i<?, R«i'<iy 0 *ll*lCTl ^TT^ 3TT^$T q^cp (<jc|I^6|<^) ^Ft200 3n^^T<(?TRVii<b ?CT3n^^T9^H^ BTcffW^f^TOT^^T -^ Dlas, The respondent No.1 her^i the said vehicie to the deceased respondent No.2 for the releva| payment of compensation, !ies on| Respondent No.2-Insuran4e offence was registered against registered against the driver of P^ the motorcycie as piliion rider, party. The instant application maintalnable. On the basls of pieadings Claimants examined K. Prabhu ciaim petition, whereas respond^ Insurance Company/respondent namely Shri ishwar Lal Netam, The Ciaims Tribunal by th( of Rs.1,62,000/- towards ioss of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- ah< clalmants to the extent of 1/3 ofl in future the deceased would ha^ 1/3 of his income to the claimant at 40-45 years, multiplier of 1; dependency and accordingiy towards !oss of dependency. further awarded towards expenses in in his repiy contended that he had given for driving. The vehlde was insured by the [it period and therefore, liability, if any for |the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. n^e Company, in its repiy submitted that the urkknown truck driver and no offence has been |lsar Motorcycie. The deceased was riding in llherefore he cannot be considered as third lunder Section 163-A of the Act is not w!1o Apah <M^I<^41^^Hc6T^'fe^<Fjl^l^ ^arf^r 317^^1 tfthe respective parties, Issues were framed. >, father of the deceased in support of their |nt No.1 did not examine any v/itness. The No.2 examined Its Administrative Officer proved the insurance poiicy of Ex.D-1. impugned award, awarded a compensation lependency by assessing monthiy income of further assessing dependency of the |hls monthly income with an observatlon that |fe married and would have contributed on!y t^ Taking age of the mother of the deceased was appiied for computation of ioss of co|T!pensation of Rs.1,62.000/- was awarded from the above sum, Rs.5,000/- each was on crematlon and loss of estate. ahd ^ET '-«i«i««,u>TTlti<i<»7Rw^y *1MWI 1»<11<1» Wt200 3IT^9T q^EP(4c|i'j|<s|<^) 3TT^$TcmrR^Jch ^n3TT^?TfbHtcS ?^nWr1Hf^T3TT^$T -I <pi<i[o<nTi +ii+icoT^rf^l<£lxRi^i^ ^ 3Tf^T 311^?T The appeiiants have ass^iied the impugned award on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has wrongl^ deducted2/3 of the monthiy income of the deceased towards his persona! ^ was argued that the Claim^ compensation after deducting deceased towards his personai ^ We have heard learned c< ixpenses and future expenses on his family. it Tribuna! ought to have assessed the only 1/3rd from the monthly income of the ixpenses. ^unsel for the appellants. The CEaEms Tribunal has [passed the Impugned award by recording the findings that respondent No.1|, while driving the motorcycie rashiy and negtigently, dashed with the tr^ck as a resuit piiiion rider K. Praneet died; monthiy income ofthe deceased) was Rs.3,000/-; the application under Section 163A of the Act is maintainable| and the deceased feEI in the category of 3rd party. Since this is the claimant|s? appeal and the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company has not preferred any the opinion that no finding is nec| have been decided by tfl appel!ants/c!aimants. We further| findings against the Issues No| ^ppeai against the impugned award, we are of iessary with respect to the other issues. which |e CIaims Tribunal in favour of the lclarify thatthe legality and correctness of the 1 to 4 may be decided on its own merit notwithstanding any observation |made in this order. So far as the arguments a|dvanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal oughl dependency of the claimants 01 opinion thatfinding of the Tribun to have deducted oniy 1/3rd for assessing \[ the deceased is concerned, we are of the ^l regarding deduction of 2/3r<j of amount from the monthiy income of the dece^sed towards his personai expenses and the t{~-^ ^ ^wT^i«10*1, ^TcTlxi*!^ Rirti^y ^^^^.M^...l.^hMl 3TT^$T q^P(^c|^<s(<g) ^200 3TT^^TcprR^|ch ^n^^T^HIcb 1:1. ?;FcTTWr;(7f^T3TT^$T -^- tlie expenses which he would hav^ married is based on sound prin| We are fortified in our vievv's by the matter of Donat LaulB reported in (1998) 8 SCC 633 wEji< assessed at 1/3rd of the total iiicoi claimants were parents & unmarr(ed have got at 1/3 amount, a^ of his earnings on his own famEiy\| For the aforesaid reasods, Tribunai has not committed dependency of the ciaimants or|i substance; the same deserves to| the admission stage its©!f. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge CPI<lio<S1l+11^051"^'^CSt ^Rl^l^ ^3Tf^T3n^^T incurred towards his family after getting ;ip!es and is strictiy in accordance with iaw. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ?^do ancf others Vs. L. Ravlndra and others, |erein dependency of the claimants has been i^come of the deceased by holding that the sister, who were dependant on him wouid he wouid have spent the rest of 2/3rd amount Iwhich he wou!d have raised, and on himself. ^r|s, we are of the opinion that the Ciaims ^ny irregularity or iEIegaiity in assessing the deceased. The appeal is without any |be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed at Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge