XI-HG—78 75^'^nVvVf, W-^WW, (q^l'My t<IKdl *Mt* 'Vt, 200 an^?r tia^ (yf-i«<i{*T) 311^1 ?iT R-f|tti ^n 3FfT^?T sFRNi' •*». '^iTW^f^T ^I^T M.AICt H*.1098 of 2007 AppeUaat S|underlal jaia son of Shri Ramlal J^in, aged about 55 years, r/o N^ndanpara, P&lice Station K|aiiker, Distt. Kanker (C.G) Versus RESPONDBNT8 1 S^njay Misc. Aooeal u/s 173 Ap^earance: Shri P.P. Sahu, and appeUant. chi<i[<*i^ili 'qra?ff ^'feT3t <n»i<^n ^•sifinsii^i Karmakar, s/o SIui R^ajeet Karmakaa; aged about 28 y^ars, resideut of 79, Area Babdem T^hsfl Pakhanjur, Distt. North B^star Kaaker (C.G.) 2 M^s. Kaaker Roadlines, Civil Lifies, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 3 Tl^e New India Insuraace Company L4nited, Divisional OflScer, Raipiu-, Dlstt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. S^ntram Sahu, s/o Shri Ratirani S^Iiu, ayed about 35 years, r/o M^tedi, Tahsil Kanker, Distt. North B^tar, Kaaker(C.G). 5. Tl^e National Insurance Coiupany Litnited, Near R.R.I. Office, J^gdalpiir, Distt. Bastar (C.G) oftlieMotor VeUcles Act. Shri S.P.Sahu, counsel for fhe D.B: Hon'ble^hrl Justtce L^,C. Bluuloo, J & Hon'ble SIiri Justjice SunU Knmar Sinlia, J. —78 an^l^T^lw ^sn sn^T sRtlicb (. -Svs; •^nw-ii, iSTily'ifi, Ri<?>iyy . M-Pi-C— '°^5- •WtCT' *Kt* ••'-••••••••"°••• 'V^ 2003- an^yr 'vw (.^Syt^i) ^aiwofta sn^i L- (01.1(^.2007) L.C.Bhadoo, J, Heard on admissioii. The appellaat, who is Ifhe claimant and husband of Sonbati Jain, has preferred th^s appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 beiag ^[grieved by the award dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Addl. Kanker ia Claiui Case No.4' accident on 29.10.2006 and s^ie was taken to fhe Hospital at Dhanitan where she died on 6. deceased per year. As the age 8, the loss of dependency was cti|<t^<it1l *1M<;lf Tf,fs^ ^-^K '^aiRn aii^i Motor Accident Claiins Tribuiial 72007. Sonbati met wifh an 11.2006, as a result of grievous mjuries sustemed by her. By fhe unpugned awa(d the leamed Tribunal after assessnig fhe aniiual iacome| of deceased Sonbati Jaia as Rs.18000/- per year aad a|Eter deducting l/3rd personal expenses of fhe deceased, asjsessed the dependency of the claunant appeUant as Rs.l2,0|00/- i.e., 2/3rd offhe incoine of of the claunaat was 55 years at fhe time offhe incident, therefijirc, by apptyiag the aiultiplier of assessed as Rs.96,000/-. Apart from. that the Tribunal has ^.warded Rs.2000/- for fimeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for love a(nd afiFection, Rs.2500/- for loss ofestate aad Rs.4000/- for m^dical expenses and fhereby, ia aU, aa award to fhe tuae of ps.1,09,500/- b.as been passcd along-with iaterest @ 9% per ^nnum finm the date of filmg of the cteim. petition i.e. 11.5.200f tfflits realization. ~3^f '^Wv'i^, yTfl^'Ko, Rx'il+fy Hl^rtl (b^lch ^^^0>.......!D 'V^ 2009- 3D^r ?ii R;.fi=h '^TT STT^T sti+llch ^ \'-i aroSr ^ra^? C^?f5??ti) ^aiw^ifTOsn^i \ Leamed counsel foi] leamed tnbuaal has assessl Sonbati Jaia used to eara vegetables. He also ai^ued| have been applied. In p^ra 14 of the award, the leamed Tribunal after scTuttmzaii conclusion fhat Soubati ^as eaming about Rs.1500/- per month by selling vegelables eami'ng about Rs.1500/- perverse in aay way as thal and fhe loss of depcndency applied whereas fhe age c years. Leamed counsel for of fhe deceased Sonbati was tti|tfl<n4t-1 tTR^ff ^l^^ <I<1t^l< ^siRmaii^ the appeBant asgaed fhat the id the dependency on lower side as about Rs.200/- per day by seUiug fhat the luultipUer of 11 ought to 2 fhe evidence reached to the Learaed tribunal mentioned that no proofregarding the incoijie was filed, fherefore, the Tribunal held that ia fhe ordiaaiy cij-cumstaiices deceased Sonbati was per month and we are of ffae considered opiaion that f4e findiag of fhe Tribunal is not does not suffer fluin any infirmily has been assessed as 2/3ri of the income, wluch cannot be satd on fhe lower side. As far as fhe applica^ion of multiplier is coacemed, the claiinant hnnselfhas writteijt his age as 55 years at the tiine of accident, as per the 2nd sc}iediile, the niultipUer 8 has to be !f fhe clsaxasait is between 55-60 the appeBant submits tfaat fhe age \ 50 years, therefore, the niultiplier 11 ought to have beeu app|ied. This ai^uinent of the leamed coiuisel for fhe appellaut i^ not reasonable as fhe multiplier hfls to be applied lookmg ^o the ay/s of the r-1niTnant if hc M elder thaa fhe deceased andl fhe ayp offhe claimant on fhe date -HG—78 TS^'^Vv^f, ®Tf1+f'l<o,Rjtrtl'Hy n-AC- |o<^g inwiT **ii* • •----••••••••------'---••••^200 7- an^?r ^nra? (Tpf3«i5<f) SV^V ?il R!-<i* HSfT STI^T'^RN? [— 'ronw ^fOT sn^i ^t- of accident was 55 years, ^herefore, fhe multipUer of 8 has r^hffy beeu appUed by tiie Ttibuaal. For fhe foregoiag reasd leamed Tribunal has not co devoid of merit ^ liable td tt)i*ff<n<ihltTrHctf ^'fel3t' TF»I^.K i? sifin an^r ns, we are of fhe opinion that the mmitted aay iUegality or iafirmity Vy passiug fhe impugned ^srstid, The learaed Tribunal has awarded fhe just and reaso^iable amount. The appeal beuig be dismissed and it is hereby :t itself. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 1 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^'^Tf^Tffs^^n-