IN THE HIGK COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A. (c) NO.^^M5__^_ OF 2011 ag^, APPELLANT: (Non-applicant No.l) Vs RESPONDENTS: ('Claimants) X^^S ^y .-^^ >y../<^^ ,-y r<^>"^ o1-"' 0 Santu, son of Shri Rekhchand Satnami, aged about 28 years, Occupation-Agricultur'ist, resident of Sulalpur, Police Station and Tehsil Kawardha, .District Kabirdham (C6) 1. bevaram Sahu, Son Of Hukum Sahu, Aged About 35 Years. 2. Sonam, baughter Of &evaram Sahul, Aged About 14 Years, Minor. 3. Thaneswhar, Son Of Devaram SahuV, Aged About 12 Years. 4. Ajay, Son of Devaram Sahu8* Aged About 10 Years. No.2 To 4 Are Minors Through Their Natural & _.Legal Suar'dian Father Shri -Devaram Sahu, Son Of Hukum Sahu, Caste-Teli, Occupation-Agriculture & Labourer, ^-UResident Of Village Chimagondi, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha, - Distr-ict r ^- Non-applicant No.2 Non-applicant No.3 Kabirdham (C6) 5. P.S. Shahdevan Son Of A.K. Bhaskaran, Resident Of LP.Z1Z417 MPSB Industrial Estate' Bhilai, District Durg (C6) 6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Besides LIC Office, Near Railway Station, Rqjnandgaoy (C6) lon, ^f^i V4A^-^^.^^^A'^^/^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^. ^. COI 01 •Tie1^!:. i.rc1, •^ffk' /"s^ ^ff."^ ^^ ^r ^y a frci-f Santi NO.I' Versus Devaram Sahu and others. ^SSS^^^Vtf<-^ UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Sjngle Bench: Hon'bEeShri N.K, AgarwaiL-J. ?resent : Sh.-i Rajeev Shrivastava, counsei v»'ith Shri Maiay Shrivastava, counsel for the appetiant. 2. Heard on admission. This is driver's appea! against the order dated 03-01 -201 1 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Ka'«vardha) in Claim Case No. 49/2009 whereby and 'A'hereunder an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- has been awarded to the daimants on account of death of Deepabai tn an accldent occurred on 23-03-2009 by motor cyci'e bearing reglstration No. C.G. 07 K/2050. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23-03-2009 at 8.00 P.M,, claimanVrespondent No.1 herein aiong with his wife Deepabai (since deceased) was going to village Chimagondi by cyde. Near viilage Bhagutola, one Motorcycte bearinc registratlon F\'o. C.G. 07-K/2050, which v/as being driven by appellant rashly and negligentiy, dashed the cycle as a resu't of .»':'?s8eaa., 'as^sSs-^ vyhich Deepabai succumbed to the injuries sustained in th6 said accident. 4. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribuna! i.1nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ciaiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,48,OOQ/- on account of the death of the deceased in the said secident. 5. The learned Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of evidence !ed, material placed and submissions made by the parties, av/arded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation in favour of the ciaimants and against the appeilant as weil as respondent No.5 hoiding iiable for its payment jointly and severally along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of appfication. 6. Learned counsei for the appellant wouid submit: the learned Tribunai has failed to deduct 1/3 of the income of fhe deceased towards her persona! expenses and thus, committed an error which is appsrent on the face of the record and the funeral expenses awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on hiaher side. 7. I have heard learned counse) for the appeliant and perused the award impugned.^ 8. it is true that the learned Tribunai has not deducted 1 /3 of the income of the deceased towards her persona! expenses. Hovi'ever, it wi!i not afrect the overaii amount of compensation assessed and awarded bv the' iearned Tribunal. The accident '.,-..-• -,-.-., icourred In the year 2009. As per declsion ef the Division ^K^-SO.,.. ^,^-. °%, /f~^»..\ j|?s€p%i 8 l^"'"JJ ^ '•h-:^^ .^' Kw Sench of this Court in Premfata & others vs. Rasul Khan othes-s; reported in 2008 (2) C.G.LJ. 378 (DB), in case where accldent occurred in the year 2009, the notional income shouid be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, iooking to increase in the cost of living and prices index. if we take the notional Income of Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000./-,per annum, after deductins 1/3 of it towards personaL.expenses of the deceased, annuai !oss of dependency would be vvorked out to Rs.24,000/- per annum and by appiying multiplier of 16, as appiied by the Tribunai, the total income on account of !oss of dependency would be Rs.3,84,000/- which is over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. !n yiew of above, i do not flnd any scope for interference in the instant appeai. The appea! being devoid of substance is liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N-K. AgarwaJ Judge ^•f"