HI^H COUST OF JUDZC^TURE CHH^TTIS^RH : BZL^SPI^ DI\g:^P ENCH CORA.",: HON'BLE SHRZ H.L. b4TTJ. £JB HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPEAL (O N0. 34° OF 2^7 .4SBB1^NTS l"^" RESPON&ENTS 1) PohGrjsharan Pandey S/o Rqjvdiabh Pondey saed about 63 ysc^s. 2) Smt jogdasr^ba Devi W/o PohorishcsrQn, Qaed ab^ut 57 yeors Both R/o Und^r over Brldge, BaSdev bag, Rqjna-idgaon Tah A Distt Rqjnandgoon (C&) y^r^u^ i 1) Bhagch<^d Sahu s/o JhumukiaS Sdiu aaed about 39 years, R/o K<?lihapuri PS ChhurIyQ <? Chichoia bistt.ftqjncBidaQo'^ T<A & Djstt.5cyn<3^dgaon (C$)T1hrough Pradeep Aarawal Rt/o Bddev B^, Rqj'n^dgGon Tah & bjstt Rqjnandaaon (C6 2) Pradeep Agraw'd S/o NGthmoi Aarawd R/o boldev Baa, Rajnandgaon Tah <& bjstt RojnandyGon (C6\ 3} 8re^ch Manager, Th© CrientG! Insurance Company Limjted, Bronch Kamthj Line Rqjnandga&n (C6) Pr^serit : Mr. RotGn Pusts\ counseS" for the csppsSJGnts. None for thc r^pondents. OR^L OS&^ (Possed on 23iia March, 2007) The foSiow'ing oraj order of the Court wa^ ga^sed by Vijay' Kymsr Shrivasteya. J. 2 This appeaS by ciaiiTiGuits under Section 173 of the Motor VehicSe Act 1988 (for short- "the Act") has been directed for enh^csment of the compers^ation, agdn^t the award dafed 03.01.2007 passed by Metor Accident CiaJms TrjiyunaS. ftujnandgaon (henceforf-h ssthe TribunGi") in Ciaim Case No.23/2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 1.35,OGO/- hss been awarded to the appeijants. 2) Srisf!y stoted facts are that on 30.07.2(X)4 Raghvendrs Pandey (since d^ceased) abng with hl^ frs'erfd Has^an Beig Mirza, on Motorcycie No. C^-OS/E/8315, was goiny to ^athuSa, on vyay he met with an accidsnt caused by truck iNo. <G& OS/ZC-0749 (for ^hort-, "the yshicje") and succumbed to the jnjuries. At the reievant time, respondent No.i was driving the vehicle in a rash and negSIgent m^ner. jrte wa^ bacheSor, therefors, his parents, who are sppeISants hcrein filed an appiication under Section 165 of the Act, for gr<snt of comp^nsatjcn Ggainst i^spondents who are driver, owner and in^urer of the vehlcie. A!i th^ respondents ^uiti^^i^u iiic'^iuiiiti. 3) The Tribunai aff-er due appreci^ion of the evidencs;, aiSowed compensation as beiow : a) b} c) !os5 of depcndency fyneral expcnses wentaf agony and hss of joye A affeetion R3.1,08.000/- Rs. 2,OW./- Ks, 25.000/- Rs.1,35,000/- - 3 4) Heard Searned counsei for th^ appejiant^ who contended that the Tribuna! erred by deducting 50% of income of the decsassd on the pre^umption of his being married in comlng years and thereafter he has to Incur expenditure on?his own famiiy. 5) From the award and fjndisng of fact r^corded by the Tribuna!, s't appear^ that appeSiants are aged sriore than 50 years. Income of ths deceassd was Rs.2,(X)0/- per month. It i^ aSso evident that app€!!(3ritNo.l is empioyed and appeiiant No.2 ha^ aiso oource of Sncome, therefore, in these circumarf'ances, ths Tribunai expectlng marriage of the dece<S5ed correctiy assessed ^}% dependency. The Tribunai aijow'ed muitjpiier of 9 ond recorded dependency R3.1,08,^)0/- wher^as scheduSe pi-e^crjte^ sriu!tipi§er of 5. Hsr-s it Is not out of piace to mention that even if income Is rea'uced +o 2/3 and correct rpuitipiier i.e., 5 isappiied the ioss of depsndency comes to R5.SG,€X)C1/- whsch is i€33 fhan thc csriount uijowed by -ths Tribunai. 6) We ar€ of the considered oplnion that the TribunaS aithouyh dsducted 50% of the dependency, yet, aljo-w^d more th^m the amount permissibie in accordcmcs with Saw. Thsrefore, findSng of fGcts recorded by the Tribunai and compen^G[tion aiSowed by It does not suffsr from <sny i'SSeyaSity. or infirmity 'A-hich may ca!$ for Interference by this Court under it3 appeSiat^ jurlsdiction. Therefore, the appfeGS is dismissed m ^mm^/ j^ Sd/- Chief Justice c Sd/- ' i V.K. Shrivastava Judge