XE-HG—78 3'CTT "4|tii0<i, 8iTfl«'i<s, Riditfy ^l*<rtl *«<!* .^^.c)......^lil.ol_ "WI. an^FT'BTO (yfl«l<ff) w l^-ll'* APPELLANTS (Ciaimants) RESPONDENTS (Non-applicants) -f- ^l^fei^ 4 ^i'^l^^ <f<nt^t< Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai, age 28 years, W/o Late l-1eeraiat Negi, Housswfe. Santosh @ Chandrakala, age 11 years, Minor, S/o Late Heeralal Negi. Suresh, Age 9 years, Minor, S/o Late Heeralal Negi. Ku. Laxmi, Age7 years, Minor, D/o Late Hssraia! Nsgi. Narendra, Age 2 years, Minor, S/o Late Heeralal Nsgi. (All the minor appetlant Nos.2 to 5 are rspresented by their mother appeltant No.1 Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai, W/o Late Heeralal Negi). Smt. Khorbaharin Bai, Age 65 years, W/o Late Kaliram, Housewife. All theabove are R/o Village Pasid, P.0. Pasid, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsi! & District Mahasamund (CG). -Versus- Dileshwar Sahu, S/o Dayaram Sahu, profession Drivsr.R/o viilass Pasid, P.0. Pasid, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (GG). (Driver ofthe Ptek-up M»No.CG(^-BQ973) Nathuram Sahu, age ^ years, S/o Dayaram Sahu, R/o Village Pasid, P.0. Pasid, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG). (Owner ofthe Pfck-up Max NO.CG06-B/2973) :",07752)Z36TZ3^S2ji£^ •^vswvyzwaK-w-ssgisscew'y-' XI-HC—78 'SvSf ^l^lolAI, 0'Tl)<1'l<o, fsl^l'My sn^r TO% (ijcjf^^T) 3. ^Fifer^N ^im^ii' '^f^fe1^ <^i^$i< 4. 5. 6. (Appeal under Sectioit Divjsion Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bte Mr. Suni! Kumar Sinhh. JJ 25-7-2007 Shri JA. Lohani, counsell Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, is directed to take tnsurance Company Ltd. Copy Heard on I.A.No.1, applicbtion + The New India Insurance Com. Ltd., through Manager/D.O. Branch Office at Raipur, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur (CG). (Ins. Com. of the Pick-up Max No.CGOQ- a'2973) Puna - Ranchi Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., ftrough Man^er/D.O. Baal Complex, Shop No.02, Tatibandh, Transport Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). Subodh Giri, S/o Nar^h Giri, age 30 years, Driver, R/o viliage Juniya, Through Jhumra, P.S. Muffassil, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). The United India Insurance Com. Ltd., Through Manager, D.0., Branch Offics at Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). (Ins. Com. oftheTruckNo.OG04-ZC/1986) 173 ofthe Motor Vehtetes Act, 198^ |for the appeltents. ^dvocate assisted by Miss Sangeeta Mishra, on behalf of respondent No.6/ United India (?f memo of appeal is served on him. for amendment in the cause title. nctice SIBBNB^^K; 1077S2! ZS&TC.f^rosS;::^—^ Xl-HG—78 Tsq- ^i^i^, ai-rfl^'itS, Rfcii'yy •^ ^ sn^?r ^3% (lyi-l«<<tt) •^' '%FffepiNJ^s^ ^fS^ ^SR^R For the reasons m^ntioned in the application fl.A.No.1), the same is allowed and counsel for th4 appellante is oermitted to carry out the necessarv amendment in the Court its^tf. Accordingly, he carried out the amendment. Also heard on admis^ion. In this appeal, or^y grievance of the appellants is that wrong tiiUltiplier has been appliet) invoh/ed in thfe appeal, a^ disposal. This appeal has beefi directed under SecUon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrievec^ Principai Acciderrt Clatms whereby the Tribunal has favour of the appellants an and one Subodh Giri, Mana Learned counsel for by the award dated 28-12-2CX36 passed by the 'ribunal, Mahasamund, in claim case No.37Q006 t»assed the award to the tune of Rs.2,92,000/- in against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. |er, Ranchi Road Lines. fhe appellants argued that deceased Heeralal Negi was aged 32 years at the deceased was aged 32 yesl aged about 65 years. He looking to the age of the de multiplier of 17 whereas the + by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, short point is such, counsel for the parties ars heard for final time of accident and perusat of para 21 of the impugned award shovre th4t even there is a finding of the Tribunal that the rs at the time of accident. This claim Detition has been filed by the wrife & cttildren of the deceased as well as wndow mother, further submlts that as per the second schedute, ^seased; learned Tribunal ought to have applied the fnultiplier of 12 has been applied. On the other hand, Sl|iri Agrawal, learned senior counsel, argued that the conctusion of the leamed Trlbunal is just & reasonable and ttie award has been passed after considering thelentire facts and circumstances ofthe case. Havfng heard learne|d counsel for the parU^, we have perused the award. As per para 21 of t|ie impugned award, the age of the cfeceased was 'i077S2).z!512-SS2;:-?:; aiirai.v' — •-— •'*°""* XI-HG—78 3=59 -^W^, ritflti'lti, Rlrtl<H3< VtWv\\ *M1* sn^rw Ki-iw + sni?r IH^ (13?f^??^ 5^affiR'flftd 3ii^I •<\ *l<<fci<ii-< tllticii'ff.fezt <p>t«5it 32 years at the time of accident. i As per the second schedute annexed with the Motor Vehicles Act if the age multiplier of 17 has to be applied apptied by the Tribunal which i^ not correct. Therefore, the appellante are entitled for enhancement of comriensation by Rs.1,16.000/-. I If the muttiplier of 17 is ap()lied to the annua! dependency of Rs. 24,000/- the comperisation amount comesjto Rs.4,08,000/-, therefore, the appellants are entitled for the claim amount to t(ie tune of Rs.4,08.000/- apart from Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and F|Ss.2,000/- towards loss of consorUum. In all they are entitled for Rs.4,12,000/-| Accordingly, the appeal enhanced to Rs.4,12,000/- from interest atthe rate of6% per arlnum from the date offiling of application i.e. 8-11-2005 till its realization. Thel in para 24 shall be applied in the| bvthisCourtalso. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge of the victim is between 32-35 vears then therefore, the wrong muniplier of 12 has been s allowed and the compensation amount is Rs.2,92.000/-. The above amount shall carry award of apportionment made by the Tribunal same fraction for the above amount awarded Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge iUSKi piTO^;J^ ;'(8775Z)Z3MM_S5KG^S.