MiscAypeal No. 385/2002 SB: Hon’ble shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar RESPONDENT Vetsus Pumjma Bai and others ORDER Post for onier on 7 x, .0620 10 \ 3 Judge, 2L, .06.201G \ R.L. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLiSPUR Sdl- K Jhanwarl‘fa. Mamta ain w/o Vijay Knmar Jain J SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, Miscellaneous Appeal No.385/2002 APPELLANT] Mamta Jain, W/o Vijay Kumar Non-Applicant No.1 Jain Present Addxess : Bagavasa, ‘ Tahsil Nagonya, District Jodhpur. Versus i REsPONDENTs 1. Pumima Bai, wife Late Budhmm, V . aged about 3O years 2. Suryakant, s/o late Budhmm, aged about 4 years 3. Chandtakant, s/o Late Bud Sahu, aged about 1 V2 years, o a ian amba hamt mt - tt 4. Omnaxayan, s/o Dh Gon village Rajpur, Thana Magaroad, District Dhari, Chhattisgarh Respondents N. 2 to 3 axe minor thmugh Ntural Guard Pumima ai W Late B, /o Budhram Sahu. All R/o village Slur, Tahsil and District Dari, Tahsil and District Dhaari, Chhaisgarh . ,' ‘ Appearance: J bh fo Shn' Aishek Saraf, counsel r the appellant. Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for responde No.4. hram aniram d, l amt APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1’73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT nt ORDER 7(‘b.06.2o1o) P. This is‘the ownel’s appeal against the impugned award dated 21.12.2001, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari(CG) ( for short the Tribunal) in claim case No. 140/ 1999 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act). The claimants] respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, unfortunate wife and sons of theideceased—Budhmm tiled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/— on account of death of Budhram, who died in the motor accident on 29.8. 1999. The claimants’pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.50—6O per day and was also earning Rs.5000/- pa. by his held. He was aged about 35 yeals. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,49,000/- as compensation along with the interest of 9% p.a. hum the date of nling the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the age of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced in that behalf. He also argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the excessive compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- to the claimants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments and supported the award R.L. Jhanwat, J. @ passed by the Tribunal and submitted that amount of compensation is just and proper and is according to the law. I have hoard learned counsel for the patties at length and have also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. In this case, learned counsel for the panics have not disputed the death of the deceased as a result of motor accident, which took place on 29.8. 1999. The appellant/owner is disputing only the point of age of the deceased. The facts in brief are that the deceased was standing, leaving 20 feet away h‘om the road near the bridge in front of Dena Bank in village Sambalpur, at that time Metador bearing registration No. MP 26 D/ 1863 owned by the appellant and driven by respondent No.4 rashly and negligently and dashed against Budhran, as a result of which, Budhram died. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged to the Police Station - Aqum After the incident, driver of the vehicle ran away. The vehicle was seized and case was registered. A claim petition was nled by the successors of the deceased-Budhram. The claimants have produced witnesses Pumima Bai (AW-1), wife of the deceased, Daulat Singh (AW-2), eyewitness and Ramesh Sahu, but no evidence has been produced by the owner regarding the age of the deceased. i/ In this case, Insumnce Company has not bgéh made a party because the vehicle was not insured. The death of the deceased as a result of accident is also not in dispute because it is well proved by the evidence of Purnima Bai (AW— 1), Daulat Singh (AW-2) and Ramesh Sahu (AW—3). It is also proved itself by the evidence of the eye witnesses that the incident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, broken the bridge and dashed the deceased Budhmm. In View of the above dndings, this case comes under the theory of res ipso liquitor. Therefore, it is clear that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Driver and leained lower Tribunal has not erred in holding the negligency of driver. So far as the age is concerned, according to wimess— Purnima (AW— 1), wife of the deceased, the age of her husband was 35 years and the age given in postmortem report was 40 years. On the basis of this evidence, learned Claims Tribunal has taken the mean age of the deceased as 37 years. Against this, no evidence was / produced by the appellant/(respondent), Therefore, Claims Tribunal has not erred in assessing the age of the deceased according to the evidence. So far as income is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.l250/- per month and Rs. 15,000/— per annnm and after deducting dependency of Rs.10,000/-, used multiplier of 14. After seeing the age of the deceased as 37 years, mulu'plier of 14 has been used in the age gmup of 3510 ; 4O years and 1€arncd Tribunal has not erred in using the mulu'plier of 14. 12. After evaluating thc evidence aaailable on record, the awani passed by 'the Tribunal is just, proper and masonabla and there is no iniirmity and illcgality in the ' award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable no and is hereby dismissed. 1 / x S3, ‘ \ a R L. Jhamy/aj/Lb/y @‘Vr‘r‘lge ' ‘ x