© ( Lt-^f- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (C.G.) ^bci^/,nn« 81n8'*fi8aik' M.A. fC) N0. 72008 APPELLANTS ^X" .^y-^L..^ 1. Ku. Ritu Yadav, D/o. Late Shri Rameshwar Yadav, aged about (5'years, through -natural guardian Shri Bhaiyaram Yadav Shri Bhaiyaram Yadav, S/o. Shri Budhram, aged about 55 years <ll?—"'l'^'.-^t^l^- ^ Kachara Bai, W/o. Shri Bhaiyaram ^'" i^.v ^t<!^ .......ly RESPQNDENTS 1. ^•- u3. Yadav, aged about 48 years, All R/o. Village-Sakari, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur VERSUS Shri Jaleshwar Sahu, S/o. Shri Kuwaru Sahu, R/o. Viliage Kuwa, P.S. Mungeli, District Bilaspur(C.G.) (Owner of the offending vehicle Auto NO.C.G.-10-T-0526) Shri Roopram Sahu, S/o. Shri P.R. Sahu, R/o. Village Sakari, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of the offending vehicle Auto NO.C.G.-10-T-0526) Branch Manager, Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd floor, 345-347 Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of the offending vehicle Auto NO.C.G.-10-T-0526) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL s AWARD AMOUNT : VALULATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs.14,25,000/- Rs.03,00,000/- Rs.01,50,000/- (As the appellant only challenging the multiplier Tribuna!) multiplier wrongly applied by the Claims ^. ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^f?^l^^[TOF 'W^ W^?l s?>*ii4» ^ h^. •^-^ -^n^^^ ^^-H^4V [®i<-ii'Hy 'effsi^r'^^w •^200^ a?rr^T^ (^if^^r) I^TOT ^fN ^il^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.1K. Aaarwal 16.11.2009 Shri Gautam Khetrapal,) None for respondent N<^ The instant appeal ha4 18.09.2008, passed by the V The facts briefly stated The father of appellant namely Rameshwar Yadav, ^N?T?N W[?ft"-^ fe^ ^?^ ^ ^Rm ^[^i Advocate for appellants. . 1 & 2 though served. Shri YS Thakur, Advoc^te for respondent No. 3. Wtth the consent ofthe jparties, the matter is heard finally. been preferred by the appellants, seeking enhancement of conr|pensation against the award dated th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal BSIaspur (for short Tr|bunal') in claim case No. 49/08. $s under: ^o. 1 and son of appellant No. 2 & 3 on 14.02.2008 while coming to Bilaspur by Auto bearing regi^tration No. CG-10-T-0526, the said Auto turned turtle due to rasri and negligent driving of the Driver and Rameshwar Yadav succuhbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants, i.e. unfprtunate daughter and parents of deceased, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act,1988') against the respondents, claimed Rs.14,75,000/- as corhpensation for death ofthelr son in the said accident. ^<^T?E ^^m ^^TTi^T<T^T<[TTR—?;S/95—11 /2GOH—1.00,000. ^s^ywfe5:yw WTW^BT^i^W ^ ~T^. ^l'^id^, ^TllwS^/ f^^l<Hy "w^r^»';?l^' •^200 3T(^Sff 1?3^F (^i^t^) ¥^TW^^^5T The Tribunal, on a clo^e scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material available on I as total compensation for the{ accident alongwith interest @ record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is sh^ enhanced. Per contra, Shri YS respondent No. 3 supported t| well reasoned and deserves t<^ '^Tsrf^^N 'siTq^ff "^ fe^ ^f^? ^ ^lff^? ^Il^?? death of Rameshwar Yadav in the sald 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its recovery. The only submission njiade by Shri Khetrapat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants |s that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11. The Tribt^al ought to have applied multiplier of 15 in the facts circumstances 4f the case, and therefore, the amourrt )ckingly on lower side and deserves to be IThakur, learned counsel appearSng for ie award and subm'rtted that the award is be upheld. 1 have heard the cour^sel appearing for the parties and also perused the record and order |mpugned. The Tribunal assessed fhe income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- perl annum, 1/3rd of it has been deducted towards personal expenses of deceased and annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000/-. TJie Tribunal applied muttjplier of 11 and assessed compensation of |Rs. 2,64.000/- towards toss of annual dependency, by adding further amount of Rs. 5000/- towards funeral ^(^^^^ ^^r^rn^^^T^—rs/95— 11 /2008—i .OO.OOO. UJ^! 1 ./; *"- "AY ^-- ^' 3?{^r^?'^w W?T 3??^TiCTW ^s. '^£?'-u?Z!!d4, '^^41'^ ^^^1< WCT-*.^'-^A:-C--U^----^200 ^SR -q^T (1^3^^) ^wiW^^ expenses, Rs. 16000/- on oth^r heads and Rs. 15000/- towards loss of love and affectiQn, the Tribuna(l ^v As age^Gf the deceas^d was about 24 years at the time of accident ~»^\claimants ar^ j9 also Glaimant. therefore, nnultiplier 6f 11.' The appropri the amount ofcbmpensation recomputed. By applying multiplier ^N^qtsf'ECT^f ^ fe^ ^N^ ifr.3^?3?(^i awarded total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. not only parents but one minor daughter <he Tribunal has erred in applying the Ite multiplier would be 15, and therefore, ^warded by the Tribunal is required to be |fl/ith 15, the amount of compensation towards loss ofdependency w(3uld be Rs. 3,60,000/-, by adding further amount of Rs, 5000/- towar^s funeral expenses and Rs. 15000/- towards loss of love and affec^on, total amount of compensation would be Rs. 3,80,000/-. By reducin^ Rs. 3,00,000/- i.e. the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, R^. 80,000/- would be the amount of compensation for which the cl^imants are ftjrther entitjed in additjon to the amount already awarded b^ the Tribunal. In the results, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. |80,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till jtspayment. The respondent No. 3/insurance company is directed to pay the same within aperiodofthreemonthsformtoday. No order asto costs. , _-- Sd/- N. K. Agarwal judge y^ri^ ^^^f^fcr—rs/95—11 /200H—1,oo,ooo.