.-:.<!'' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL N0. b*& f OF 20C MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appellant Non-Applicants no. 2 R^spondents ^ 13-^ nu ^ State of Chhattisgarh through the Director, Department of Health, Behind Mantralaya, Raipur, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1.. Shyamlal Sahu, S/o Siyaram Sahu, aged 26 years, Occupation - Car Driver, R/o through Director, Department of Health, Behind Mantralaya Raipur, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Non-Applicant no. 1 Smt. Bharti Nishad,aged 26 years, Wd/o Bhimendra Kumar Nishad, R/o Village - Kharora, Post & P.S. Kharora, Distt. Raipur(CG) Non-Applicant no. 3 .3: Sundarlal Nishad, S/o Ratnu "^ . Nishad, aged 52 years, Dulari Nishad, aged 44 years, W/o Sundarlal Nishad > 5. Ku. Chitrarekha aged '<, 14 years, D/o Sundarlal Nishad -—- 7. > Durgesh Nishad, aged 12 years, S/o Sundarlal Nishad Suresh Kumar Nishad aged 16 years, S/o Sri Sundarlal ^ ^^j^, ^ NS13a^ f^—^ci^i^ante (R/o Gujra, Post - Lakholi, P.S. Mandir Hasod, Tehsil -& Distt. Raipur (CG) ^;:-a^:- HtGN COURT OF CHHATTIS@ARH AT BILASPUR IV8.A.(ClNo.681of2007 APPELLANT Moii-applicant No.2 State of Chhattisgarh though the Director, Departnnent of Health, Behind Mantralaya, Ralpur, Tahsjl & Distt. Raipyr (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS : Shyamlal Sahu and others. APPEAL UNDERSECTJON 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICUBS ACT.1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'bleMr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the appelianVState. None for the respondents, theugh served. ORALORDER (Passed on 10th d^f of March,2010) This is owner's appeal filed s^alnst the award dated 17-10- 2006 passed in daim case No. 53/2004 by Eighth Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Raipur (for short 'ttie TribunaJ') whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.3,47,000/- has been awarded in fevour of the claimants and as against the appeftant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of applteation. 2. The fects briefly stated are as uncler; On 31-03-2004, Bhimendra Nishad (since deceased) white going from Raipur to Lakhoull by his motorcyGte, at village Labhandli, he was dashed by Qualis Car bearing registration No. C.G. 02/1921 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accictent. 3. The widow and one minor child have filed a clajm petjtion under Section 16jB of the Motor Vehicles Act (fbr short 'the Act') cfaiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- fbr the death of deceased againstthe appellarit*, The Tribunal has register«tthe same asclaim case No.61 /2005. In the same way the parente, minor brother and sisters of the deceased have filed claim petltion under Seetlon 168 of the AcS against the appellant and respondent No.1 clalming ^ fi^ Rs.31,50,000/- as compensation fbr the d@ath of ttie deceased and ttie same was regtetered as Claim Case No.53/2004 by ttie Tritovnaf. Since all are the claimants claiming compensation for th@ death ofthe deceased, tearned Tribunai has heard both the claim cases joinfty and passed the ^ward. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of th@ evidenee ied. material ptaced and submissions made, held respondent No.1 responsible for the said accident; assessed the income ©fthe deceased at the time of accident as Rs.2,000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3rd of it towards the personat expenses of the deceased, tooking to the age of the deceased as 24 years at the ttme of accident; applied multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.2,72,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.75,000/- on other heads and thus av^rdedt a totat sum of Rs.3,47,000/- along wfth interest @ 7.5% per annumtom the date of application. 5. Learned counset appearing for the appellaRt would submjt that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessjng notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. fn view of the legat position that in the Second Schedufe und@- Section 163-A ofttie Act prescribes notional incpme of Rs.15000^- per annum only. He would further submit ttiat the jearned Tribunal has ©predin awarding Rs.75,000/- on other heads. 6. I have heard Jearned counsel for th®appeltant and peruse^ the award impugned and the record of the learned Tribunal. 7. The iearned Tribunaj has rightiy recorded a finding regardir^ negligence of respondent No.1 which is based on appreciation of evjdence and no fault can be found jn it. So far as the notjonal income of the deceased considered by th@ learned Tribunal as Rs.24,000/- per annum is concerned, the accldent took place in ttie year 2004, tooking to the increase in the price ind©xand in the prices of essenti^l commodities, the notional income prescribed in the year 1994 as' Rs.15,000/- in the Second schedule appended to Section 163-A ofth6^ct,can be taken as Rs.36,000/-. ^ 8. in view of above, the notional income taken by the Trife>urNii as Rs.24,000/- per annum cannot be faulted with. So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is concerned, certamly it is k^ on higher side, but if the amount of compensation is catculated by taking into consideration the notionai income of Rs.36,000/- per annum, the compensatlon towards loss of dependency wouid be Rs.4,08,000/-. If we add in thjs amount Rs.15,0(X)/- on other heads, the total compensation woufd be worked out to Rs.4,23,000/- which is more and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal and »us,it wilt not affect the ultimate result. 9. For the foregoing, jn the considered opinion of this,Court. the amouot awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonabte and does not call for any interference of this Court. Therefore, the appea! being devoid ofsubstance is iiabte to be and is hereby dismjssed. Kvr Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge IN^ ''\