IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G. M. A. fa N0. f04^0F 2009 Si?w!s ^sn' APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 9< ........^£^ ^^^- wi"^ iSS^"'" •"K NON-APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Venkat Laxmi -Widow of Raghav, aged about 25 years; 2. Ku. Madhvi D/o Raghav, aged about 3 years; 3. lyar Babu Son of Raghav, aged about 4 years; 4. Smt. Ramdevi Manikam Wife of Ramdvo Venkatrao, aged about 52 years; 5. Ramdev Venkatrao, Son of Rawdevjagnnath Nayak, aged about 55 years; Appellant No.2 and 3 are Minor through their next friend and guardian Mother Smt. Venkat Laxmi widow of Raghav. All R/o Village Panampahu, Tahsil Samalkot, District East Godawari (Andhra Pradesh). VERSUS 1. Mohanlal Sinha Son of Ramchand Sinha, aged about not known, Occupation Driver, Through Meha Transport Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distrirt Dhamtari (C.G.). \^ QT Meha Transport, Through Rajendra Nanda Son of Banshilal Nanda, aged about not known, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager/Branch Office Near Balvidya Mandir, Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). Claimed before Tribunal Amount awarded by the Learned Tribunal Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 4,17,500/- Rs. 2,20,000/-^ Appellant have recessed the claim value on the basis of income and multiplier. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 T i^ ^SE;'<ii'Mi<n'Li,yii1'H'is, fa<ni'My,< . p^A C-c) ^o- f0^ 7 Heard on admission. This is deceoised ciaiinant's ap^eal seeking enhancement of ^ompehsoitjon against the award da|ted 19-02-2009 passed by Honbie Shri Justice N.K. AQ Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the| Ithe Additional Motor Accident Claimj [for short 'the Tribuncl) in Claim| 1/enkat Laxmi vs. Mohanlal Sinhol livhsreunder Rs.4,17,500/- has been t:ornpensation for the death of de^ ppeliant No.l. i. That on 19-03-2008, decejised Raghav (hereinafter 'e.ferre.d as 'deceased') i.e. husbmd |)f oppeilant No. 2 &3 and son of •raveling on motorcycie, between ('iliage Kodebod, one tanker be< P.5/ZV/0121 driven by respondent |4o. 2 and insured by respondent ipeceased wotorcycie pursugnt to i^ccident died on the spot. q>W[c1<fl"< 'WI^f 'if 'fyZt tNSSR ^ 3JRCT 311^1 appetlants. Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dhamtari Cnse N0. 12/2008 (Smt. <& others) whereby and warded to the appellants as ;eased Kaghay, husband of if the appellcnt No.l father 'espondents No. 4 & 5 was ^aipur ond Dhamtar'i near iring registration NO.C.&. ^lo.l, owned by respondent 3o.3 dashed agcinst the 4.1 e injunes in the said ^N'isi'llilMKM-IK'li?—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^~. XI-HC—78 '7^ ^WW^, •9-^WW, fsldiy^ t^A CC)rJ°- 1"^^ SII^I'q^? ('^°lS3P^'El) 3(I^[WfelHi ^TT SH^T c?>*11^> 4. The claimants preferred (i claim petition claiming Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for| 5. Learned Tribunai, on a close and material available on recordj Rs.4,17.500/- as compensation inc 1-t+ie death of the deceased. icrutiny of the evidence led awarded a total sum of [uding Rs.9,500/- on other heads as provided in the Second Sci^edule of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with interest @ 6% p^r annum from the date of application. 6. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned coun^ei for the oppeliants would submit that the compensation awar^ed on other heads is on the lower slde. Nothing has been awa+ied on the head of loss QT ioye and affection. He further suStmits that the Tnbunal has wrongiy assessed the income of the 7. I have carefuliy gone 1+irou9h 8. Learned Tribunal after cypr^ciating ths evidence !ed by the appeildnts, assessed the income cpplyin9 muitiplier of 17, awarded a ^rafepii-if -w^f ^fs^ <fa^;i< ^; aifim 3]T^!ff ileceased. [the impugned award. as Rs.3,000/- per month by ium of Rs.4,08,000/- and by adding Rs.9,500/- on other heads, ^. tota] compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/- ho,s been awarded which s adequate and it cannot be said that it is shockin9ly on lower sic|e. —^— in :?s^^?a^ >:sS%;s:^^i: XI-HC—78 3^T •<ii<<i<vi<4, yni'M'is, [a«ni'My,< .^.SCLfJe:J.6.it.:. Ci sn^i Tra^' (yilsi'i?) 3n^Oil{nW ^TT '3TJ^?T Sti^iq^ K'/r TOraT'afet an^i 9. In a motor accident ciaim caj Motor Vehicles Ac-r, 1988, wha-t] compensation to be awarded by tli Just and proper compensation in ti^ each case. It is neither a bounty no 10. For the reasons mentioned h< scope for enhancement of the co Tribunai. 11. The appeal filed by the compensation is therefore iiable to No order as to costs. shi^T^^I'i *fW^ ^f fs^ (F^R^R ^? aiRn sii^t ie, as per Section 168 of the is impor'tant is that the e Courts/Tribunai should be e facts and circumstance of r charity. ireinabove, I do not find any mpensation awarded by the iants for enhancement of the be and is hereby dismissed. N.K. Agrawal Judge r^.w fetihr'*"4- ]F .^" SS£^w:^^'s-!^y^^'^^--'&sS:^M^