XI-HC—78 3^- ^ii^i^, ^•<fl^li<o, (si^i'yy MW^{ sbNlcb ^^ 200 an^RT TT^SR (yit^^y) 3T^l ?FT'feti^T ^ff^n^T^Hte l^l^ '^rrw^rf?^ 3?n^r M.A(C] Appellaats RESPONDENTS 1. 2, 3. \ 4. cbl^id^l'1 ^HdI 'ff.'fe^ <P»itSr« ^3iRlH3TT^T No.l 188 of 2007 Neera Bai, Wd/o Late Maiioj Kumar Safaaiui, aged about 29 years Ku.Prabha, d/o late Maaoj Kumar Sataaiiii, aged about 9 years, Roshaa. Kuniar, s/o late Maaoj Kuinar Sataaini, aged about 7 years Ku. Diyya, d/o late Maaoj Kuniar satnami, aged about 9 years, Miaor appetlaat no,2 to 4 represented by their natural Giiardiaii aiid motber Smt Neera Bai, AppeUaat No. 1 AU residents of Deo Baloda, Thaaa, bhila-3, TehsU aad Distt. Durg (C.G) Versus Mohaa Das Sonwaiii (Paaka), s/o Raincharan. Das, aged about 48 years, r/o Manish Bhawaii, Shaiikar Nagar Kunxhari, Thaaa Kumhari, Tehsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (Driver aad Owner of the Vehicle Truck bearing Regn.No, C.G.07-C-3876) Braach Maiiager, The Oriental Insuraace Compaiiy Limited, Divisional ojGSce, P.B. 51, Malviya Nagar, Durg, (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck bearing Regn.No. C.G.07-C-3876) (C.G). 3^T^FTT^T, t5TftW^, (o^wy t|jNW %^?^ •^ 200 3n^[5FT^w ^TSn^TiOTNT 3H^?r XRRR (l^i^^) chl^id41'1 "RRdf ^'fe^ <Fai<^i< ^^rRm^Fn^i Misc. Appeal ii/s Appearance: Shri Sameer Smgt 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. , counsel for fhe appeUaiits, D.B: Hon*ble Shri! Hoa'bleShri Justice L.C/Bhadoo, J & ^Justice Sunil Kumar Siiiha, J. IRAL ORDBR L.C.Bhadoo, J, Heard. The clamiaats are 23.10.2007) wife aad minor children of late Shri Maaoj Kumar Sataamij who died m Track accident on 21.10.2006 have preferr<|;d this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, be|ng aggrieved by the award dated .., L . 29.3.2007 passed by 5th ^ddl. Motor Accidents Tribunal, Diirg, ia claun case No.223/'.! learaed Claims Tribunal ^ tune of Rs.3,84,000/-. !006 whereby and whereimder fhe twarjded fhe loss of dependency to fhe |n addition to fhis, fhe Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- f^rloss ofconsordum, Rs.15,000/- for love and affection towa|rds miaor children, Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses, fherel awarded wifh 6% interest clami appUcation i.e., 06.3 The maia grievaace }y ia all Rs.4,08,500/- has been |on fhe said amount from fhe date of 12.2006. of fhe counsel for fhe appellaats is that or^ fhe date ofmciderjt, the deceased namely Maaoj Kumar ^atiia^i was workmgf a« [h^lpfr in tT^f- Tnick ia queotion and ^St^^^ 3^£T-41^1^, ^Tfly^l^, fs)^l'y*4,< W^v{l tb^lcb -^ 200 3TT^T ^T ^i^h Tf^T W^T $t)^lcT) 3TR(?TTRT5R ('i<<f'l*<<y) i^nw^T^Sr -3' he was eamiag Rs.6(| been assessed as Rd deceased was aged al| chl^id^)v1 'RTR^Tf ^f.'ft1^ <F]i«ci< ^'3^FT<3n^T lOO/ - per monfh whereas lus iacome has .3000/-. Further ai^ument is that the out 35 years, therefore, a miiltiplier of 17 ought to have been a|pplied iastead of 16. He also submitted fhat fhe loss ofdepe^dency has been assessed as 2/3rd which ought to have been 3/|4th. Comiag to the prst argument, in. Para 12 of the award the leamed Tribunalj has held that except the applicants' evidence, no other e^idence has been produced in order to estabUsh flie iacome bf the deceased and it has been furtlier held that he was wor|kiag as helper, fherefore, in the normal circumstaaces, he Hence, this fmdiag perverse or unreasoni record. Coining to fhe s| ist be gettiag Rs.3000/- per montli, >f tlie Tribunal caiinot be said to be tole lookiag to fhe material available on ^cond poiat, fhe Tribunal has observed fhat as per fhe postjiiortem report Ex. P.6, the age of the deceased was 35 years) claim petition (para second schedule, ia c^ exceediag 40 years, Therefore, the correc^ the same has also been mentioned iii ) that he was 35 years aad as per fhe ^se the age is above 35 years but not |tnultiplier of 16 has to be appUed. multipUer has been appUed by the Tribunal on fhe basis bf niaterial aad there is no niaterial ou record to establish fha^ on the date of accident, the deceased was below 35 years. ^" 3:^T ^WW^, ^-M41<S, t®i^l^^< NINdl sb^lcb 3?i^T^['fe;ri^ I^T ^I^? ^^8^ ^DV i^i»1 Rao ..^..B.^..M..^..^.L6..^... 3:(T^?T'^TcE (^f^qsl) ^ 200 ^^TW^^^l^T --4-1 Now comtag deceased has left beh|nd liis wife namely Neera Bai aged about 29 years, 3 rainor chpdren namely Ku. Prabha, aged about 9 years, Roshaa Kuiaa|: about 2 years aad th| that the deceased i4ust be spending at-least l/3rd on his personal expenses ar|d remainiag 2/3rd has been assessed as loss of dependency l^ 4»1^41^'WS^f '^,'fe^ <fa^a< ^3Tf^r3??^r o fhe 3rd arguraent, adimttedly fhe aged about 7 years & Ku. Diyya aged Tribunal has reached to the conclusion oking to the age of fhe mitior children. We are of fhe consid^red opinion that the Tribunal has rightiy assessed the loss ofd^pendency as 2/3rd on fhe basis ofage of the raiaor children aii{l units, tibierefore, aU fhe poiats raised by the counsel for the |appeUaats are devoid of inerits as fhe compensation awarde^ by fhe Tribunal lookmg to the totaJity of the facts aiid circums^aaces ofthe case, is just aiid reasonable. The appeal be^ng devoid of nierits is Mable to be disinissed, aad tlie s^ine is hereby dismissed at fhe raotion stage itsetf. Sd/- Sd/- sun" Kumar Sinha L.C.Ilhadoo Jud9e Judge J1~]'"~~~J:'—~"—~