-78 ^wT '-«i<ii«<4,u>Ti11<i<i<», Roi<<i^'< TPTcCT^Tf^ ••••^••^•40N)C>...\.^X^-^200% 3TT^?T CRCP (^C||^6|c£{) ^^TcpTf^TT^ H^n 3H^5T3Rtc^ ^ ^PTT^R ^rf^T 3TT^$T APPLELLANTS: CLAiMANTS RESPONDENTS: (Mjsceiianeous Appeai under| 1988) cpi^fci><i1Ti ^i+ioT^?Fsuc1\Ryi^'ci'< ^3Tf^T3TT^$T 1. Lamiya Bai, aged about 43 years, wife of Shri Ramesh Prasad Chandei. 2. Ramesh Prasad Chandei, aged about 49 years, son of Late JVIahesh Prasad Chandei. Both are R/o New Rajnagar Coiliery, PO Bangavvan, Tahsli - Kotma, Distt. Anuppur (MP) Presentiy R/o Viil. Seepat, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) -Versus- 1. Rajendra Prasad Kayasth, aged about 45 years, S/o Bhagwat Lai Kayasth, R/o Viil Kotmi, PS Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Driver of Bus No.MPL 7031) 2. Narmada Motor Transport Co- Operative Society Limited, P.S. Pendra Distt. BiSaspur (CG) (Owner of Bus No.MPL 7031) 3. The Branch Manager, New India insurance Co. Ltd., Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsll and Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Insurer of Bus No. JViPL 7031) Section 173 of the Motor Vehides Act, ^^%^ ^s^."^ ^ ^'.^ • -^ ^vSf '-^i^irt^, u>Ti1^i<i<»;Rrti^y^ 'TTq^T^'TT^ 3TT^$TcpTR^J<b ^2n3TT^5T3^tcp 3TT^?T q^P (^cli^elcs;) ^200 ?^TW^rf^n3H^5T -<§! Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra Hon. Shri Dilip Raosaheb D^shmukh. JJ 24-11-2008:- Shri Sudhir Kashyap, Heard on S.A. No.1, this appeal, as the same has per the Office note dated 25-9[ On due conslderation by the affldavit of appellant opinion that the appellants| preferring thls appeai with application is allowed and the Also heard on admissioih This is appeiiants' dated 20th March, 2008 Accident Ctalms Tribunal, No.212/2007 whereby a sum| annum from the date of compensation for the dled jn accident on 10-10-97 No.MPL/7031 (hereinafter ref| accident, as a resuit Vijay yltlmately died. chl^lfc!>41-1+ll^c^'^'feu&^Fjl^iK ^3Tl^T3^ST c^unsel for the appeiiants. apt)lication for condonation of detay In filing (seen preferred with a detay of 99 days, as 5-91-2008. 4f the appltoation, which is also supported IRamesh Prasad Chandel, we are of the have established sufficient cause for |a delay of 99 days. Accordingly, the pelay in fijing thls appeal Is condoned. jmlssioih. appjeal for enhancement against the award pas|sed by the learned 1st Additional Motor ^ilaspur, ?n Motor Accident Claim Case |of Rs.2,42,100/- with interest @ 6% per apt>iication has been awarded to them as unfortui|sate death of their son Vijay Kumar, who v(/hiie traveling in a bus besring registration f^rred to as the Bus), which met with an (since deceased) sustained injuries and v~.^ ." iC-78 ^JwT ^I^IO^, tPTTl^-I^Ko, Rlril^-f^ ^ ^mwi a^TT^F 3H^$TcpTR-licb ^rT3TT^5Tfy)^tc^ v^- L»^ 3TT^?T q^l> (tjcli^dcE;) ^200 ^^TW^rf^T3n^^T -3 befere arld The ciaimants' case deceased was traveiing in a Stand, the deceased was driver of the bus, drove the b^ Kumar feil from the bus Respondent No.2 Is the respondent No.3 insured the ^ was 26 years old young man | Munim in Bole Babu Transp^s parents of the deceased, we| the deceased and with thesel was claimed as compensation|. Respondents No.1 an^ despite service of notice ancj they were proceeded ex-p|s contention of the clalmants, p| only for 15 days. The the Insurance Policy. The dri')/ driving commercial vehicle. and there is breach of polick compensation can be fastene^l On the basis of framed issues. Theclaimant^ the Tribunal was that on 10-10-97 the 4us. When the bus stopped at Barod Bus a!i|ghtjng from the bus. Respondent No.1, i((is rashiy and negligentiy, as a result Vijay sustained grisvous injuries and died. r|egistered owner of the bus whereas; !()us for the reievant penod. The deceased |and was earning Rs.3,750/- per month as |>rt Company. The claimants, unfortunate |e dependent on the earning of thelr son, pieadings, a total sum of Rs.13,15,000/- p|arte claimtints •rlhe pleadirjigs cpi<4lo41<i +ii^c5T^Ts^cl <<Rii^-ci1< ^3?f^T3TT^$T 2 did not appear before the Tribunai did not fiie their written statements and Respondent No.3, denying the eaded that oover note of the policy is valid have failed to establish particulars of /er did not possess vaiid driving iicence for vehicie was being driven without permit / condltion and, therefore, no Ijabiljty for on the insurer. of the parties learned Ctaims Tribunal examined Lamiya Bai, appeijant, as AW-1 ^S^s^s^^ ^A^ 1 ^p^l Lff C-78 ^^.s^ ^wf ^iqioo, tPTl11<-l<l<?, Rrtl^^ *11*101 ^TT^? 3n^^TcpTR-||ch n8n3iT^$T9>Hf<p ^^ 3TT^?T q^P (4c|ij6|<£;) W^ 200 B^TT^ ^Tf^T OT^^T <—cpi^fc>j1Ti^i^oT^?f^t^Fjt^ci^ ^3lf^T3n^9T and Manoj Kumar (AW-2) in evidence was ied by respondejnt Learned Claims Tribun|al accident was caused due to respondent No.1 on 10-10-971 the accident and the offendin^ condition. Dlsbelieving the the deceased was earning Transport Company, asses4ing making deductions of Rs.30C|/- the deceased and further ds towards personal expenditure| appellants has been assesse<|l of appejlant No.1 at 53 ye^r applying multipiier of 11, a ioss of dependency. Further Rs.2,500/- towards loss of est of Rs.2,42,100/- has been Learned counsel for award only on the ground tha|: erroneous and the same shot age of the deceased, who wa^ Deductlon of Rs.300/- tow^i sUm ^upport of their claim petition whereas, no No.3. by the impugned award he!d that the |rash and negligent driving of the bus by deceased Vijay Kumar died as a result of bus was not driven in breach of the poiicy ^a\ evidence of appeilant Lamiya Bai that IRs.3,750/- per month as ^4unim in the hls monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, |/- per month towards pocket expenses of |educting 1/3rd of the remalnlng amount of the deceased, tota! dependency of the at Rs.1,8007- per month. Taking the age ^rs and appeliant No.2 at 58 years and of Rs.2,37,600/- has been assessed as sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cremation and tate has been assessed. Hence tota! sum as compensation to the appe!!ants. appeliants has impugned the above |t multipiier of 11 applied by the Tribuna! is (Jld have been app!ied keeping in view the ^ on!y 26 years at the time of the accident. rds pocket expenses and 1/3 amount awferded llhe '^ ^' -78 ^JSST ^i^irt^, tp-^11<-l<l<ft, Rrtl^l^ *i 1*101 a^TT^ 3TT^?T q?Tcf? (4c|I^4<6i) W?t200 3TT^^Tc}nR-lJcb cT%TT3n^$T^^fcp c' ^ Ban/e ?^H^^rf^T31T^$T -s- €Pl^fc">J1<1+11+1rtT^?fcl<? ^Rl^-CI^ ^3ri^H3TT^^T towards personal expend'itur amount is also excessive. We have heard learned Learned counsel for thi monthiy income of the deces otherwlse, finding of the TribLl ciaimants have not adduced establish the saiary of the de| oraJ evidence of appetiant Tribunal has rightiy regard. So far as objectlon Tribunal and deduction of Rs| deceased is concerned, we ai in this regard is in accordanc^ For the aforesaid enhancement and we hoid to the appellants Is Just and p| Larlniya disbelievled reaslons thfet jiabie to be dismissed andjs ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ of the deceased from the remaining |counsei for the appellants. ^ appellants has not seriousiy questioned ^sed as assessed by the Tribunal. Even ^na! in this regard is based on fact that the ^nd proved any documentary evidence to •|;eased at Rs.3,750/- as cteimed and onjy Bai has been adduced, therefore. the v|ed the evidence of the claimants In this t'egarding muitipEier of 11 seiected by the |900/- towards personal expendlture of the i(e of the opinion that finding of the Tribunal |with settled prindples of law. >, we find no merit Inthis appea! for compensation of Rs.2,42,100/- awarded 'l-oper. The appeal being devoid of merit is s|ccordjngiy djsmissed. sd/- --&"-"