T •T-l| -|\(^£-isP£^h&^o o^ ^P^eAL [ THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSQABH AT BBLASPURfC.G.^ JMA(C)No.JO-.l.2 QF 2010 (^APPEAL VALUEOAT Rs^A8.40ft/-> APPJEAL UNDER SECTIOV 173 OF ?jB MOTpRVEIflCUSACT. 1988 Appellaiit (Non- Applicant No.3) (Applieant) V.eisus 1. (NON^pptieaHtNo..l) 2. (NON-ApplicantNo-Z) 3. Uaited In^a InsuEance Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisteial OfSce, 1 Floor, Krishna Coiaplex, Kutehery Chowk, Rapur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Yadav, D/0 — Late Sewakram Tadav, aged about years, R/0-Vm^iyawasini Ward Dhaartffia^ TA. &. Distt.-EteuataEi (C.G.) BfceEU Kiuaar Dta»t S/0 - PtkaA jDJffuv, qged -.22j^ts, S/0- VlUage- Agun>» Tah- & (CG). Narendra SuAa Srf& — Sinha, S/O.-vilL-Aguni, P.S.-Aguni, Tah.&Distt.-l E8fi APPELLANT RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J, M.A.(ClNo. 1012 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited. Versus Dhaneshvrari Yadav & Others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance; Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appeilant. Shri Vimlesh Bajpayee, counsei for the respondent No.1. ORALORDER (10/01/2011) Following oral order of the Court was I. M. Quddusi. J. passed by This appeat has been filed by the Unjted India Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 25/06/2010 of the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 51/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06/09/2008 at about 7.00 p.m. deceased Smt. Basanti Bai was standing by the road side near Surya Rice Mill, Raipur road along with others to welcome Swamiji who came for preaching. At the same time traetor bearing registration No. C.G.05f'C/7791 with troltey bearing registration No, C.G.05/C/7792 which was driven rashly and negligentty by respondent No.2 namely Heeru Kum'ar Dhruv dashed Smt. Basanti Yadav as a result of which she received grievous injuries and she died on the spot. Deceased was working as Peon in District Education Office, Dhamtari and was earning Rs.7,330/- per month. The claimant has claimed total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-. 3 . The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant was a mamed women and the Tribunat should not have awarded fte compensation as she was not dependent upon her deceased mother. . /' \ ~-:^~.. y- "<> "A-. 'lt ".ass, iiiS&'ais'i ; ^l %-.M. —•3-' 4. We have perused the Lower Court Record and could not find any document or even the plea in the written statement that the claimant was a mamed women. In her statement the claimant has denied that she was married meaning thereby that she has stated that she was unmarried. However, from the statement of AW/2 i.e. District Education Officer, who had proved the monthly salary of the deceased, has stated in his cross examination that the daughter of the deceased (daimant) cannot get compassionate appointment as she is afready married. 5. No issue was framed whether the claimant was married or not as nothing was disputed in the written statement regarding her marital status but the Tribunal has observed in the award that the claimant was a married women and applied multiplier of 10 whereas the age of the deceased was tess than 50 years and multiplier of 13 was to be made applicable, but the learned Tribunal has intentionally made muNiplier of 10 applicable due to the observation that the claimant was a mamed lady. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the claimant was a married lady there is no reason mentioned in the award as to why the multiplier of 10 was made applicable and if the claimant was not a married lady in that case also the multiplier of 10 has wrongly been made applicable. 7. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration atthe end ofthe Tribunal. 8. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence, amen^ their pleadings, file documents or to get the documents verified ete. thereafter, the decision shall be taken afresh. 9. - If any amount has already been deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the same shall remain in deposit ti!l the decision is taken afresh. 10. Noorderastocosts. _ —___—— - Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -^ /.