IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M.A.ra vj^l /2p H^ APPELLANTS XLAIMANTS \^. >^ ywA ^^" -••^Tt.^^"' ^^v'.^^ ^^ / Smt. ShahnazB^gum Wd/o late Rafiq Khan, aged about 28 years. Ku. Tamanna D/o late Rafiq Khan, aged about 09 years. 3..- Abid Khan S/o late Rafiq Khan, aged about 07 years. 4. Ku. Laiva D/o late Rafiq Khan, aged about 02 years. 5, Smt. Ashiya Begum W/o Usman Khan, aged about 55 years. G.^Usman Khan S/Q Ramjan Khan, aged about 62 years. Appellants No. 2, 3, and 4 are Minors, through legal guardian Mother'Smt. Shahnaz Begum appellant No. 1. All R/o Veerbhadra Nagar, Thana Tikarapara, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Shekh Abdul Rafiq Siddsqui S/o Shekh Abdul Alim Siddiqui, Owner of the Minidor No. CG-04/T-2756, R/o Mominpara, Naya Masjid Raipur (C.G.) The National Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of the Vehicle No. C.G. 04/T-2756) Miscellanceous Appeal under Sectioff^l73 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1994 &ESPONDENTS: f NON-APPLICANTS 1. ^ 2.- ..___Z1_.L^2L___ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTKGARHATBILASPUR ^ Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants MA(C)No.461 of 2009 : Smt. Shahnaz Begum & Others Versus Shekh Abdul Rafiq Siddiqui & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri AL Singhroul, Advocate for appellants. None for respondent No. 1 though served. Shri GVK Rao, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 29th day ofApril, 2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 09.01.2008, passed by the Vlllth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short the Tribunal') in claim case No. 38/07. 2. The brief facts of the case are as uncler : 3. On 02.01.2007 Rafiq Khan (since deceased) was driving Minidor bearing registration No. CG-04-T-2756. The said Minidor turned turtle as a result of which Rafiq Khan died on the spot. 4. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, clalming compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- for the dea i of deceased in the said accident. ss^ss^' The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/-; held deceased was of the age of 34-35 years at the time of accident, deducted 1/3rd of Rs. 3000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, looking to the age of deceased applied multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2500/- each towards love & affection to appellant No. 2 to 6 and Rs. %00/-each towards loss of estate (i.e. Rs. 15,000/-) and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 4,18,500/-. Shri AL Singhroul, learned counsel appearing for tte appellants would contend that the Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. According to him, looking to the numbers of dependents it ought to have been 1/4th of the income of the deceased. On the other hand, Shri GVK Rao, leamed oounsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit that the claim preferred by the appellants was under Sectjon 163-A of the MV Act. Under the said Section the amount has to be awarded strictly in terms of Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehides Act. According to said Schedule onty 1/3rd of the compensation is deductible as personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and the same deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard the leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned. 9. In a claim preferred under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the amount is required to be assessed strictly jn terras of Second Schedule appended to above Section. As per Second Schedule only 1^rd of compensation is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has cateulated the amount of compensation after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased which is strictly in adherence to the provision and no fault can be found in it. 10. No other points have been raised. 11. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of subslance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu