IN THE HIGH COUR OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C G ) zou M.A.(C) No. 2 15 @ @E *Egjj%$ Wexe‘w5w APPELLANTS : 1. Suchita, Wd/o Yohan Masih CLAIMENTS Aswani, Aged about 23 yrs. Ku. Sangita, D/o Late Yohan Masih, aged about 05 yrs. Ku. Yogita, D/o Late Yohan Masih, aged about 03 yrs. Harun S/o YohanMasih, Aged 1 yrs Premshila W/o Hannuk Masih Age 52 yrs Hannuk Masih, S/o Prabhudas Msih, age 55 yrs, Appellant nos. are 2 & 4 are represented by legal guardian mother appellant no.1, All resident of Godhi, , Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VS. RESPONDENTS: 1. Deshl S/o Shobhit Ram Nishad, ‘R/o Sora h, PS—Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari, Present aress, C/o Ramchand Panjawani, R/o Lal Baghicha, Ratnabab Chowk, Dhamtarl (C.G.) NON—APPLICANTS 2. Asha Devi Panjawani W/o Ramchand Panjawani, Lal Baghicha, Ratnabab Chowk, Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division - 1) Jail Road Raipur (C.G.) 4. Seman, Das S/o Premdas, R/o 167, Ganeshpur, Po- Bishrampur, Raipur, Distt. Raipur.(C.G.) the new India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division - 2) , Behind ‘Jeevan Bima Karyalay, Pandari, District— Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1994 T IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT M SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice N. K. A arwal. resent : Shri OP Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed 0n 08.02.2011) 1. Heard on application for condonafion of delay. 2, Looking to the fact that there is no limitation prescribed for filin ofthe claim petition before The claims Tribunal, dclay dcscrvcs to be and is hereby condoned, Registry to register the case. Also heard on admisSion. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 23.01.2009; passed by the ‘Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 102/07, whereby an amount of Rs, 4,30,ooQ/— has been awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest. @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment 4. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 04.05.2007, seemon @ Son'u (since deceased) while riding motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-O4—CU—899l and was e x H P g HAQ 215 APPELLANTS : Suchita & othcrs V VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Deshi & going towards Dhamtari along with his fmnds Mohan and Rakesha all of suddcn lost his balance ovcr the motorcyclo duo to burst and collide with Truck bearing registration No. CGa07-ZC- 0940 which was standing on the road? as a result of which all of them succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. As against Rs. 6,40,000/— claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of Rs. 4,30,000/— as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum £rom the date of application till its payment. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/— per annum; deducted l/3rd of it (i.e. Rs. '12,000/-) towards personal expenses of the deoeased; looking to the age of the deceased as 24 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of l7, assessed the amount of compensation at Rs. 4,08,000/- towards loss of dependency (24,000./- X 17 = 4,08,000/-) and further awardedkRs". 22,000l- on other heads. and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 4,30,000/-(4,08,000/-+22,000/—) in favour of the claimants. Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased on lower side, and therefore, the amount of compensation needs enhancement. Ihave heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the order impugned. 3 g? The Tribunal has rightly assessed the imome: of the damaged at Rs. 3000/- per month; looking to number of the claimants rightly deducted l/3rd of it towaxds personal expenses of the deceased and looking to the age of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier of l7, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award of compensation in favour of the claimants, and in the considered opinion of this court, there is no scope of interference in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, 1n View of above, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. 10. ff! fix”;- . v Sd/— ' N. K. Agarwal ' Judge