-te—78 3:esr '<<i'4i<-)<<, OTfl'y'ifi, Rirti'yy ...^.^J^l^. W^ 200 aroSr'wiw (i^iF'^^;) 3II^SI3BlSslR? wnaiR^^iiffi TOiiw^ifeian^r Aooellanls/ Claimants Resoondents <ti|-4lcfft7I 'HPRlf ^fe^ <Rq'<^R ^ ^rfyfl <Hi^i Roocjchand iVIulchandani, aged about 45 years 2. Mukd Mt!irLI av««ii/| Viiav nf .Ch Ali rfesidenl of Jarhabhata, Sindhi Coionv, ^ur(CG). Vereus- alwhand Jai! h (ADoeai under Section 17; Divlsion Bench: Hon'bie Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Mrtr?3hla ^hri Siinii ICiim^r Sinhai -I, •<?,-11- Heard Shri Alok Bakshi, couns son of Shri Devandas Mu!chandani. sh Mulchandani, son of Shri Rooochand iandani, agsd about 23 years. Mulchandani, aged about 20 years, son 'i Roopchand Muichandani. Gut Resid Rajdij CQ-tli Shri MahsJ! Koad[ Bus s) The priental Insurance Company, C.B.O.-2, Madiia ?.4anzii First Fioor, Kachahari Chowk, joad, Raipur(CG). Patei, son of Shri Ramhit Pale!, !eni of Tikrapara, Near Shiv Chowk, lanl Travelere, Driver, Vehicle No. O-ZA-0386. iViohd. Hasan Khan. Proprietor/Partner jev Transport Company, High Court in front of Anand Hotel, Biiaspur (CG), wner No.CG-tO-ZA-0386. ? of the Motor Vehicies Acl, 1988) y Torthe aopeiianls. aK—78 3:5ET ^ll'i<10<l, (Sl-rfiy'Ko, (s|<!'ll'y^< •WI, 200 sii^?r'wra; (4<!il-i«tt8?) aii^n^F ii.'fidi wii ww, a^qw ^aiwateisii^i '*iifi'ii)-i ^imaf if.fsret <(«itsi< ^3lfOT3II^[ The ciaimante, who are husbfe Bai, have preferred Ihis appea! undef being aggrieved by the award dated Accidents CSaims Tribunai, Bilaspuj Tribunal after assessina monthlv incfc after deducting 1/3'° of the income 4s applyina muitipiier of 15, assesse) Rs.1,80.000/-. The ci.aJm case, in brief, wa'sj Ninnala Bai (since deceasecDwas trt Davalband ,Road, Ihe offendina veHi No.CG-IO-ZA-386 dashed from beh|j beina driven in a rash and nealiaer) sustajned serious injuries on the head The claim ofthe c'aimants is li and she used to earn Rs.1 .OOO/- oe; about 44 vears. Resoondent No.3 cot Learned Tribunai afier scrutinij on record obsen/ed in para 11 ofthe anv certfficale has been oroduced bvl deceasad, came to the conclusion 111 income ofthe deceased as Rs.1.500^ During the couree of argumer) for Iheappeilants, has not disputed t| other material has been produced husband &sonsofthedeceased. Sh| Advocats, who apoeared before the ind & sons of the deceased nameiv, Nirmaia Ssclion 173 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act. 1988 11-9-2007 passed bv the Is Additiona] Motor ;n ciaim case No.12/07 wherebv learned ime of deceased Nirmala Bai as Rs.1.500/-, s personai expenditure of the deceased and the !oss of deDendencv to the lune of Jthat on 8-12-2006 at about 12.30 p.m. when bvelHna on a Luna alono with her husband on |icle i.e. passenger bus bearing registraiion Ind aaainst the Luna and the said bus was It manner, as a result of which Nirmaia Bas and died instantaneousiv. :hat Ninnaia Bai was enaaaed in taiioring work dav. At the llme of accident, she was aged htested fhe ciaim Detilion. kina the evidence and other material avaiiabie fcward that since no documentary evidence or the claimants to estabiish the income of the lat 1t will be iust & reasonabie io assess the oermonth. fts, on enquiry, Shri Bakshl, iearned counsel the fact that no documentarv evidence or anv bv the ciaimants except {he evidsnce of 1-iBakshi, submitied that he enauired from the 1'ribuna!. and he informed that the husband of w /^•""^ ^%, f ::i ^s^^^^^ s k ^ , JJ 'fi^v€/° 3:5ET '^wi'yi^, ©•JI'y'Ko,Rf0iy^< "WI. 200 an^?r iraq; CvSyys) 3T^r^r1^nT Trai ans?; gi>iw Wiiw ^ifw sn^T +l*lfd^1'l i:fPRl¥Tf,fe^ <f"l'^.l< ^ afffw <»ii^?i the dsceased is a veaetable vendor. record regarding status of the hust| been adduced 1o establish thai Nirn-1 lailorina and she was havina {he fii laiiorina. >'* has not been brouaht on stitoh, what was the ievel of the iaild the said shop nor any material has t] shoG from anv deDartment. Therefd conciusion of the Tribunal that norrrl Der month is based on sound reasd frndina of learned Tribunai reaardind the finding of the Tribunal is unjust c Tribunai regarding monihlv income rsasonable. No other point is argued by Sh For the fo.''eaoina reasons, w award oassed bvthe Tribunai. In the resuit, ihe appeal being is herebv dismissed, at the admission SdA L-C. Bhadoo ' !Even otherwise, nothina has been brouaht on ^nd of{he deceased nor anv evidence has iala was oossessina anv oertificate reaardina tet class knowiedae or exoerience reaardini record that vvhat Mnd of c'othes she used to Irina shoo and how manv oersons workina in leen brought on record regarding the tailoring 1-e, we are of the considered opinion that the lallv an ordinarv tailor would earn Rs.1.500/- hina. We have no reason to differ from the monthiy income ofthe deceased as to how 1' unreasonabie. Therefore, the findina of the of the deceased Nirmala Bai is iusl & IT] Bakshi, iearned counsel forthe apoellante. ^ do not find anv iiieaalitv or infirmiiv in Ihe Idevoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and i} I stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge