& •»GHCOU! AT BSLASPUi insis Bench iyjjscejianeous Appea! |C.) No,2S8 of 2007 Aopellants/ Claimanfs Smt. Nemu Sharma, aged 43 years, W/o Late Shri Jivan Lai 2. versus .^y^r'3i2s'?^A r?pni*' i S i^ 3. shoj Pratap Sharma, aged 20 vears, S/o Late Shri Jivan Lal •Sharma Both R/o Vlliage Lajkera via Flgeshvi/ar, P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Karnal Sahu, aged 25 years, S/o Panna Lai, R/o Viilage Koma, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Driver of Vehicie Mohd. Yunus, S/o Yusuf, R/o Naya Para Rajim, Station Road, Naya Para, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Oriental insurancs Co., Madina Building, Raipur (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehjclesAct, 198S Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the Shri Sudhir Agrav/ai, counse! for No one appears for other respondents peilants. ; No.3. [Passed on this 15 day ofApri!, 2008) tn this appea! for enhancement of compensation, the appeilants/daimants are aggrieved by the award dafed 02-01-2007 passed in Claim Case No.48/06 by the Additional Motor Accidents Clain laims .Trjbunai, Gariyaband, District Raipur (henceforth 'the tribunai'), wherebv in a case of death due to accident the tribuna! has awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,000/-. J- -2.— (2) The facts are that on 14-02-2006, Manoj Sharma, aged 23 years, a motor cyciist was hit by Mini Bus No.CG 04 ZA 0496 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 and died. (3) The claimants mother, aged 43 years and brother, aged 20 years filed an appiication for compensation uncler Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'). The claimants examined Rohit Kumar, the employer and exhibited a document, i.e., saiary certificats Ex.P-8 showing the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/"-. The tribunai, however, refused to rely on ths document and on the basis of the festimony of Rohit Kumar, A.W.-2, recorded a flnding that monthiy 'ncome of Uie deceased on the date of accident 'A'as Rs.1,500/-. Deducting 1/3 therefroni toxvards persona! expenses and appiying multipiier of 13, it assessed ioss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000,'-. To this, it added a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- for each ciaimant towards loss of iove and affection and, thus, awarded totai compensation of Rs.1,68,000/-. (4) The soie ground urged by Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsei for the appeiiante/claimante te that the tribunai ought to have assesssd the monthiy income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- whiie assessing loss of depsndency. (5) On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counse! for respondent No.S/insurer submitted that the tribunai has given good reasons for not relying on the salary certificats Ex.P-8 and for assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-. i ., •nl~ri: 3- (6) Having considered rivai contentions, ! have perused the record. Considering the facts and cireumstances of the case, the age of the deceased and the evidence relating to the income of the deceased, 1 am of the considered opinion that the loss of dependency assessed by the tribunai is on the iower side and shouid be snhanced bv Rs.25,000/- in this view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the tribuna! deserves to be enhanced by Rs.25,000/- onlv. (7) in the resutt, the appeai is aitowed. in substitution of the award passed by the tribunal, compensation of Rs.1,93.000/- is awarded to the claimante aiong with interest at the raie of 6% per annum from the dats of appijcation tiii reaiisation. After adjusting the amount aiready paid, the remaining compensation shali be paid by the insurer within two months from foday. —— Sd7- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Qopal •