&^ ^l 3^ST ^iFTT^T, (!i'jiy'l<S, Rl^l^y ^SrfSIRSIsitIR; T(gwR^ifta3i^i qOTferiN iwRffti.fedxtezR APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: -V 1. 2. 3. (Appeal under Section 173 o Division Bench: Hon'ble Wlr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, J< 15-1-2008 Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forth^ appellants. Ssrtyam, aged about 5 years, S/o Late Shri Hemant Kumar Sahu; Shubham, aged about 5 years, S/o Late Shri Hemant Kumar Sahu; Appellants No.1 and 2 are Minors, through their natural guardian MoUier Priyanka, Widow of Late Shri Hemant Kumar Sahu. Priyanka, aged about 30 years, Widow of Late Shri Hemant Kumar Sahu; All residents of Vitlage and Post Katalbod, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) rsus- Chandu @ Chandrahas Slnha, Slo ShriRam Prasad Sinha, R/o Village and Post Sankra, District Durg (C.G.) Narendra, S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Gupta, R/o Main Road, !n front of Bus Stand, Kurud, District Dhamteri (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office Kachahari Chowk, Jai! Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 'ttie Motor Vehteles Act, 1^8) 3(R?i ?5T i^l'* ^T S^^Ts^ficn y=ST ^WI^, rinflyjl<i, fi^ltiy TRiTwgfts ant^i Heard on admission. Oral order dictated on Dai L.C. Bhadoo. J: - The claimants, who are wife & ctt have preferred this appeal undeji 1988, being aggrieved by the Additional Motor Accidents Clal No.124/2006, whereby the Tribui| deceased as Rs.4,500/- and which vfas being spent on himi 2/3ro i.e. Rs.36,000/- per month and by applying multiplier of 1j assessed to the tune of Rs.5,76,( under the heads of funeral exper) thereby in all an award of Rs.i interest at the rate of 6% per a| amount from the date offiting ofU| Brief facts of the claim case are tlbat while driving bus No.CG-05/B-66^8 against two motorcycles one of wfiich Sahu (since deceased). On a( deceased in the accident, he di< claimants was that the deeeaset satary from the pesUcides shop cultivating his land as well as Ndren of deceased Hemant Kumar Sahu, Section 173 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, jaward dated 29-9-2007 passed by the jms Tribunal, Dhamtari, in Olaim Case ^at after assessing monthty income of the th^-eby after deducting 1/3ri of the income, ^elf by Hemant Kumar Sahu, remaining |loss of dependency has been assessed 1|6, total loss of dependency has been POO/- and Rs.15,0)0/- has been awarded tses, loss of consortium & loss of estate, )91,000/- has been passed andfurther, ahnum has been awarded on the above he claim case. tljiat on 5-7-2006, Chandu @ Chandrahas in a rash & negligent manner dashed was being driven by Hemant Kumar jcount of the injuries sustained by the ip instantaneously. Further ctaim of the used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as jaiid also by agricultural operations by tBe tand of his brother. The daim was 1 T- /&^! *^1^1^ sn^iqiil^R? gqisn^IaiiW 3^q- ^|A||^, diTny'!ri, isitf'i'yy :.A.^...^A..3 •^Wtdll-f -WRft'^f^ TS^KZK ^giwgffg sn^'i resisted by the respondents anp the parties were allowed to adduce evidence. 1 After hearing parties and perus^l of evidence availabte on record, the Claims Tribunal in para 15 of thejaward has hetd that a certificate (Ex.P- 11),has been produced to the eff^ct that deceased Hemant Kumar Sahu was working in Sagar Agricultur^t Centre, Kurud. The Tribunat further held that even though a cerifflcat^ has been issued by the owner of the shop and Ram Kumar (owner of^ie shop) has examined himself, but no sales tax registration number was on a simple letter head. The Trib aroduced and the certificate was issued inal further held that owner of the shop has stated that he is mainlaining i)sgister regarding sates & accounts, but same has not been produced. O^jmer ofthe shop has atso stated about submission of tax retums, but copi^-s of the same have not been produced in order to establish that how mtich monthly salary he was paying to Hemant Kumar, thereby the claima|its have not been abte to establish that Hemant Kumar was getting Rs.6p00/- salary per month. SimMarly, in addition to 18 acres of land which|was in the name of the deceased,14 acres of land was being taken by tljie deceased on lease from his brother, but that has not been believed by| the Tribunal on ttie ground that Ram Kumar Sahu is real brother of the|deceased, therefore, being interested witness, he has given such statem^rrt which does not Inspire confidence. Ultlmately, the Tribunal has ass|Bssed income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. '^c_ 3:5^ ^l^l^, ^xfly'Ko, isitfW^ .(c^ f ^ <^^_ swsi^il^ra' •gsn s^s *-<i°n TRiRR^iftoa^i ^ii^i<rlA)1^ *iH<^' '^,f^3t <t^s.S< ^?3(fOT3Ili?t 4. Mr. P.P. Sahu, tearned counsel fo^ the appellants, argued that apart from salary, the deceased used to ea^n money from his agricuttural land by doing agricultural operations and nfanaging the agrfcultural land. As far as salary part is concemed, soupd reasonings. Proprietor of tl any tax retum or accounts or leds flnding of learned Tribunal is based on ^e shop Ram Kumar has not produced [er in order to establish ftat in fact, he was paying Rs.6,000/- per month|to the cteceased. Similarly, as fer as income through agricultural operati|3ns is concerned, the land is stilt there, thectaimants can earn money fronji that landand on that accountthere is no loss of income. As far as thelcontention that the deceased used to maintain and oversee the agricultui^l operations is concerned, it is difficult to believe the same that a permahent emptoyee who was working in a pesticide's shop on reguiar basis ^ nd used to get handsome salary was allowed by the owner to do ^imultaneous agricultural operations. Therefore, it cannot be held that t^e claimants have suffered any loss of dependency on accountof agricult( salary from the pestieide's shop w| just and reasonable. Other point argued by Mr. P.P. Saf| was that multiptier has wrongly deceased was aged about34 years| have been applied. But perusal Priyanka, wife of the deceased, has jral operations. Rs.4,500/- per month mch has been ass^sed is more than lU, teamed counsel for the appetlants, been applied by the Tribunal, the and ttierefore, multiplier of 17 ought to of the impugned order shows that stated in her evidenee that at the time of accident her husband was 35 ye^rs of age. On that basis, multiplier of -3^3; ^ll^ll^, STfly'ld, fsX'i.iyy ...H,..a...^.i^^ 3iii(?r IRW ( ^? oTS^? ^^lcn ^giw:'ai?g sii^i <*w!i'f«il"<'qnCTf '?.fecS <i«l<SK ^?3ifiCT3I^?I 8. Soma 16 has rightly been apptied and we multiplierof16. do not find any itlegatity in applying Uie Mr. Sahu further submitted that Nv nothing has been awarded under tl1< true (hat no money has been awa( affection, but looking to the amour|t the tune of Rs.5,91,000/-, we are o< amount has alreadv been awarded i been awarded under the head of show perversity in the order. IttSS In the cireumstances, we are of reasonable compensatlon amount Tribunal which is not unjust or unr< the impugned award does not requi appeal being devoid of merit, is lis hereby dismissed, in limine. No ord Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge r io children (claimants) are there and head of loss of love & affection. It is ded under the head of loss of love & of compensation already awarrfed to the opinion that a just and reasonable by the Tribunal, if any amount has not iss of love & affeetion, same does not the considered opinlon that just and has already been awarded by the sasonable in any manner. Therefore, i^-e any interference by this Court. The Ible to be dismissed and the same is ferastocosts. _ — Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge