:—.)' -ti-y % IN THE MIGH COURT OF JUDIC/mjRE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M.A.ra A\^ /2oog? APPELLAIMTS UMANTS RESPONDENTS : NON-APPUCANTS ~7' 'Santosh Kumar Shukla S/o Ramgopal Shukla, aged about 44 years. 2^Geeta Shukla W/o Santosh Kumar Shukla, aged about 43 years. 'Ku. Asha Shukla, D/o Santosh Kumar Shukla, aged about 17 years. ^u. Neera Shukla D/o Santosh Kumar Shukla, aged about 15 years. Appellant No. 3 and 4 Minor through : legal giiardian Father. All R/o Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. .p^s^ 2. ^ a.SS' •Rs V", -Manpj Kumar S/o Badhu Ram Dhruw Permanent Address Village Boundi, P.0. & Thana Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) C/o Temporary R/o Director, M/s Heera Transport Company Limited, Fafadih Raipur, District Kaipur Chhattisgarh) Director, M/s Heera Transport Company Limited, Fafadih Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) United Insurance Company Limited, Th : Llnited Insurance Company Ltd. Kutchery Chowk, RaipurTahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) -Ramavtar Pandey S/o late Ram Prasad Pandey R/o Shankar Nagar, Kumhari, Post and Thana Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the MotoLVehicle Act. 1994 ^ :..^ o'&" ^ »2 3. \^-^ .4. *^.- -*•» HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.)No.619 pf2009 Appellants versus Respondents Santosh Kumar Shukla and others Manoj Kumar and others Present: Shri A.L.Singroul, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon 5th July, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing this appeal. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1 is, thus, allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ^ 2. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 3. The appellants/claimants claimed compensation of Rs.10,30,000/- for death of Rakesh Kumar Shukla, who was the son of appellants No.1 and 2 and brother of appellants No.3 and 4. 4. The claims tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.5,28,298/-, however, because of the contributory negligence of the n '-:.A •2- deceased himself for causing accident to the extent of 50%, the actual amount awarded is Rs.2,64,149/-. 5 . The claims tribunal has found that the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/- yearly and after deducting 1/3 amount on his personal expenses, the annual dependency has been assessed at Rs.24,000/- and by applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency income has been assessed at Rs.3,60,000/-. An additional sum of Rs.96,798/- has been awarded for expenses on treatment of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- for special diet. Rs.4,000/- has been awarded for expenses for engaging an attendant and Rs.500/- for traveling expenses. The claims tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.20,000/- for loss of estate. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the claims tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased has contributed to the extent of50% in causing the accident. Record ofthe claims tribunal is available in this Court. On perusal of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that the finding recorded by the claims tribunal regarding contributory negligence does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Admittedly, the deceased was sittingas the third person as pillion rider along with the driver and one more pillion rider in the motor cycle. Since the motor cycle is designed to carry only two persons, there is nothing wrong in the finding recorded by the claims tribunal that the deceased was also responsible for traveling in the motor cycle as the third traveler. ^ ^: " '% I tl1, ""'''" T- ^ ^ . /' [f ":^'SSSS^' 3 7. There is no scope of interference in the impugned award passed by the claims tribunal. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal ^