3^ET '^ll-yi?')^, 8iTfl*)'ie, RrtK-iy y 4Wdl *NI* •V^ 200 sn^s 'WSK (4c<F^«i<w) sn^rw ft-fi* w sn^i sfcii'* TOiiwgferan^r nijisc,AppeaI(C| Appellaats RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS 1 2 3 Iteiver Owner 6 MISC. APPEAL UNDEKl VBHI <*Wl<-fiil-l tllldf Tf.1stsl' A<si< ^'aifim sii^i No.l089of2007 Branch Manager, ICICI, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., near IC.M.D. CoUege, Link Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) Vcrsus |Mrs.Uniula devi, aged about 53 |years, w/o late Diaaaath Siagh [Ku. Piaki Siagh, aged about 17 lyears, d/o Late Diuanath Singh |Dhirendra Kumar Singh, aged ]about 23 years, s/o ]ate Dinanath (Singh ^itendra Kiunar Siugh, aged about !6 years, s/o late Dinanath Singh [AU residents of Qr.No.B-112 jCharcha, Distt. Korea (C.G) at (present residents of Sarkaada jnear Shiv Maadir, Bilaspur Aml Kumar aged about 34 years, ]s/o Shri Naraaada Prasad, r/o |viU^e Seepat, PoUce Station [Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G). |Asraf Ali s/o S.K. Ali, R/o near ]Dhan Mandi Budadev Nagar, jTorya Bilaspur SECTIQN 173 OP MOTOR iLBSACT Appearance: Shri Kisbore Bhadiiri the appeUants. iH Shri Raj Awasfhi, counsel for :C—7S 3tl^?fVI Kii* •gqisii^ispiw 3:5q''WT1"PT, HiTlly'IS, (s|(7>l<?l^< yw^i *i)i+ ._ ....H.;..PI.<-O.........L?..^..L.IEC.° an^r -qg% (ipfgg^d^ •FRIWHfl^ •OT^I -T^- DB: Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhaddo 85 Hoa'ble Shri Sunil Kumlur Siaha, J, J ORAd. amoiilat (09.] L.C.Bhadob, J, Heard onadinission. The iasuraace coinpan|y 173 of the Motor Vehicles A<] Addl. Motor Accident Clamis awarded compensation aad it has been farther directt for 6% iuterest on the said claiin petition. Leamed counsel for Tribunal has erroneously inonthly laconie i.e. Rs.25,: ought to have taken in.to ac) iastauce the iiisurance coiapensation amount, for permission froiu the Tribunal| 170 of the Motor Vehicles Ac1 Insurance Coiapaay as of under fhe grounds avaitable i^. ,18<)/ '*wii'i41-f Tfi^f ^fs^v ^rezre ^aflmsn^i ORDER 0.2007) has preferred fhis appeal u/s [•t 1988 whereby the leamed 9th Tribunal (F.T.C), BUaspur, has to the time of Rs.16,41,520/- id fhat the claim.ants are entifled jinoruit fi-om fhe date of filiag of PIC appeUaats argued that fhe taken iato account ttie gross '- whereas fhe learned Tribunal sount Rs.22,192/-. In the first pompaay is chaUenging the fhey have not sought auy as per fhe provisions of section to prefer au appeal, because fhe is entitled to file an. appeal section 149(2) ofthe M.V. Act. wlhich rikht nl 3:5ET •<||<||c')<|, ai^ly'16, fs|i7ilti^< 'mwn' *t<i<*>""""""""""""""""""---'y----^ 200 ?- an^r Tre (ijcff-jifi^i) 3ii^i.qiift;iig? WTsiKWspira' ^<nw ^ifta an^i ">• We are fortified in our vi Court iu the matter of Nal Nicolletta Rohta^ reported li Apart from that as far certificate of incoiue of the decl annexed wifh fhe appeal iu \i deceased naniely Diaatiafh wa| fhere were deductions againsji Fund, Pension Fund and Addittonal the net cany salary was Rs.2; were beiag deposited iu fhe amounts which were beiag de< to be refunded to Dinanattt therefore, it caunot be said available to Dioanath on situation would have been diiBi made against such head tti|E refundable to the deceased, deducted agamst the chai^es but all these deducticfns schemes which on completion] to fhe einployee, fherefore, we ^ argument of leamed counsel fij): Tribuiial has righfly taken intc) fhe deceased ^s Rs.25,180^ ^rai^i-tili *ii*i<*ii ^f fs1^ <pTi'(^i< ^sfRFttsn^i [^w by ttie decision of the Apex tlonal Insurance Co.Ltd V. III (2002) ACC 292 (SC). fas the hicoine is concemed a :ased (Aanexure A-3) has been |'hich the gross income of the ^ Rs.25,180.09 per month and jt the P.F., F.P.F., Benevolent Pension Fund aud thereby t,192/-. The above deductions laccount of Diuauath and fhe lucted under these heads were >n aiaturity of those schemes, Ithat these amounts were not of the scheine. The trent had these deductions were amount of which was not For exaiiiple, if aay aoiotmt is charges, house rent were being made under the of fhe scheine were refundable lo not find aay substaace in the ir the appeUant and fhe learued accouat the monthly incoiae of to, that we do not find any trans^ortation GRPRJ—FS/246—2/2 3^.:zn?(T?ST, (SiTnwi^, Rciiy^ 'HWctl *^1<*.^..^yi^^).ji^L............ SIT^I W K-tt* 'OTI tffl^t Biiro ^) SS^ft IVRK (.'^Syt^tl ?'snwafei CT^I k Therefbre VaUe illegality or mfirmily. m. fhis appeal. No other poia|: There is also delay o| Therefore, this appeal is weU as on lunitation and it itsetf. ^^-—— — Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge *l<llet41-t TV^S^fs^l TfsngIT ^; SliRlH SI^T we do not find any substance? has been raised in this appeal. f 26 days in filiug ttiis appeal. to be disxnissed on laerits as ^s dismissed at fhe motiou stage Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge w ,!