IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: MISCELLANEOUS/ APPEAL No.5?xl. OF 2004 K“ I / I r / MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR CHHA‘ITISGARH VEHICLE ACT A‘ppellant a /National Insurance Company (insurer) .w Ltd. through its Asstt. Manager, QNCX National Insurance Company, B—1 Taha Complex, 2nd Floor, Ring Road No.2, Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Parmeshwar S/o Ramchandra a é; ‘ t Respondent (Driver of vehicie) Aged about 26 years, Rf/ozwuq Kamma Khurd P.O. %P.S. Malpurg, Distt. Tonk,“ (Rajasthan), Present Address: Madhya Prad‘esh —Rajasthan Transport, Jarahabhata, Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) Respondent Pa rrneshwa r, S/o Shivnarayan (Owner of Vehicle) Aged about 22 years, R/o Viii. Kewdi, P.S. Kewdi, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan) through Vimai Transport Co. Kewdi, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan) RESDONDENTS V Mathura Bai Wd/o Ramprasad (Ciaimants) Sahu, Aged about 52 years. ,4’ Suresh Kumar S/o Ramprasad Aged about 33 years, (SLNo. 3 & 4 are R/o Viii. Kargikaia, Tah. Kota, Distt. Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) WQ f XI-HC-22 1 I ‘ I i I i ‘ ~.b, respondent No.2, in a rash and 1egligent manner, dashed against Ram:Prasad’resulting 1 u in his instantan eous death. Widow‘end son of the 2001 on the file of Motor Accident ampensation of Rs.5,20,000!-. The s available on records came to the an can be fixed at Rs.62,000/—. 20/09/1993 when. respbndent Nq.1 w d‘eceased med Claim Cassi Moms b: x Cilams Tribuhai,.Bilaspur ciaiming a c 'lTribunal after' considering the»; materia donclusion that the proper comper§sati‘ i' ‘This Couxt pare-fully examinec Fribunm ha$ hgid that the deceased yfears. The claimants namely widow e 52 and 33 years, respectiveiy at thz pjroceeded on the basis that the de éarning R$.‘15,000l- per‘ year and al ‘i’he rea3ons given by the Tribunal for ‘re quite proper and .acceptabie. ’Tr tihejucigment of the Tribunal. Cor olismissecl andit is dismissed. e i ‘v l i i i l the materials on records. The at the relevant time was aged 6O nd son of the deceased were aged it time. The Tribunal has rightly tceased at the relevant time was so in adopting the multiplier of ‘5. arriving at the figure of Rs.62,0001— is Court does not find any error in sequently, the appeal has to be {T £ Sdl— Chief Justice ‘j '- WreW for the appellant. insurance Company is the appellant, The accident occurred on ho was driving the vehicle, owned ' '. g! ..... ..............................................m m an W snéa ‘ mmawfea mm 1310812004: - l