. . Mm&mmwwmmmQ¢m%Gmwamwmwa rwmm E. m wwwwwm «mi. ‘ $ummhwwwm \xwiwq “Em“ m3rmwmmmwuw$E ¢m $wwamm mm“Emnmwwhmgmmgm 3Q ”3%: .mkmmwwwmm ‘ Lhgmfmmm 4%“;.wO maFnawauvwaaam QUE wwmwm w W mamREM“? ;mmmamawawngmwgwm § kw. a mm? mM4,?3w Gwmaammw a.“ w, wmcgmrUmM gummEmE acm. mw 3w axEarnmrmmuwwm$mmwm§z gm Kmw o mmammmwm-xm§.§mFm- w rm%m:§m~ EmmmmnuE“my. mw as 3w 1% am mmm§ynm ma. g? ma Q 3m£mn£ {wwgmu m immwt mm?magmmaxmw Emma“ ammg .wg. mmwwcwWmw agrwamrwwg h F im$39. wwmgrwum5 :wmx ( EéGH €0E§R’é‘ 9F $k§HNWE$Gr£RH AT Eéi=A$i3tiR Wag. A§§e&§ Na. 3M at? 2%3 £LE3?EE‘L§L¥§E : ’ ma” S‘mgh i CLgikiMgxN? ‘Jgrsug RE$§QN§3ENTS 1 Basan‘f Mamk and sthers : NON$PFM$£N$ ExPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF ’%‘HE MGTéR VEHECLE$ ASL “ 1g88 § DE: Hen‘bie $hri Jus’iim RE. g. Agarwa! & i; Hen’bie $m§ “Ausiéace §h Jhanwar. We$§jg§ : Sm CK. Sahu‘ ceaunsei S'orthg appeéiant. ‘ Nerie hr respencier‘ris No. 1 & 2. ‘ Sm Swfw Agmwah coum$¥ far resmndem ‘ No.3!msurance Company. H mam. amER f{§’a$sed- cm §8th aiay a? Nav’emma 2mm 3 Pay RIK. Agarwaa J‘, ‘1. This is cia‘amané’s appeai med agamsi ihe r%jectioa of the daim petit§on vide awmd dated 25—06-2003, pas$ec§ by ihe First Addit§onai Motcr ccidem C!a§ms T?ibuna$, § Mahasamund (fer‘short ‘the Tr§bunai’) in C§aim Case Ne. } J . i 38/2GQ2. 2. Brief facts of khe case are that on 15—H-2GG1, Amar Dag (smca deceasea‘) wh§ke gemg t0 Tumgacn was dashed by Er‘iver cf the Truck bearing registratien No‘ WE v— 33/5534 by rash and negiigent d{év§ng, as a result 0‘ which he , wccumbeé to ihe injurEes sustained En the sai€§ asc§dent ® h) The ciaimam brcthei a? the deseased has filed a pgtiimn befare the Tn’bunai under Secticm 16$ cf the Motar Vehicies Act, 1988 (for shori ‘ihe Act") ciafmmg campgnsatmn af $321 ,QOOI- under various wads. The £éamed *Tribuma} on dose scrutmy a? iiha eviaiemce Ed, mateyia piaaeé and submEsgions m3de by the parties, he¥d that the cleémanfs heve failed {o prove the rash and negiigent dréving af the dre‘ver of the offending veh§cie (Truck) and dismfssed the ciaim petitien. Learned counsei appearmg fer the appeHant wouiat submit thet deepite the fad that the ciaiment has faiEed to prove the heghgence sf the dr§ver of me offendmg vehicie, is entmed to Rs;50,000l—, under sub-section (4) of Section 740 of the Act, which has no€ been awarded by the teamed Tribunat. {5) Learned caunse! for the respOhdehtHnsurance Company coutd net dtspute thts tega} positien. Howevet, he submite that even if the driver ef the offending vehicie was found negiigeht in the said accident, the ciaiment being mater hmthez’ cf the deceeeed eiso not dependent en the deceased, the maxt’mum amount 0f cempensatieh which cauld be awarded to the claimant wcuid be Rs.5Q,OOQ/~ enty. We have heard iearned ccunsei for the parties and perused the award impugned and the records of the Tribunei. l‘: @ 8‘ As ihe appegam is mt dispu’iing the award on the point of yieghgence and aiso considering me faci the cia§manf being major brother ot the deceased was not dependent * en him, we see no reason ta disturb the above finding regarding neg!igence. However, the ieamed Tribunaf has comp§eteiy failed t0 coneider the provision contained in Section 140(4) of the Act under which the ciaimant is entitied for Rs.50,0GOz’- even if the deceased himeeif was reeponsibie for the cause of accident. Therefore, the appeai is aiiowed. The appetieht/ciaimaht is entitied fer RsSQOOOI— as compensatian for the death of the (iteeeased in the said accident. The eppeiiant/ciaimant is further entitied for interest 0n the above amount @ 6% per annum from the date of appiication tiii its recovery. i9 monthe' time to deposit this amount before the Tribunat. Reepencient No3/insurance Company is granted three Kvr No oreer asto costs. i \xw Sd/. R.L. Sd/n JhaHWar ‘ N. K. Agaiwal i to Judge