TE^T ?2n?n^r, ?s>Tf1'y4i<s, fsi<?'>i'H^< 'WERff *^1<*»""""""""""""""""""T""""""""""^ 200 ^lit?T 'q^RF (4e<li^<^) ^ii^i^il^rig? ^ra^r ^fe ^RTTw^^r^n^T APPELLANTS: CLAIMANTS $. RESPONDENTS: <=b8^?<n<4i<i ^H<??f'^Ffel^ir <r^'^i< ^3tRR3TT^T -Vel'sus- Malti Bai, Widow of Late Shri Nirbhayaram Dhruv, aged about 32 years; Amit Kumar, Son of Late Shri Nirbhayram Dhruv, aged about 17 years; Kumari Sheetal, D/o Late Shri Nirbhayram Dhruv, aged about 14years; Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Shri Nirbhayram Dhruv, aged about 12years; Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Shri Nirbhayram Dhruv, aged about Syears; The appellant No.2 to 5 are Minors, through their Next Friend MotherSmt. Malti Bai. All are resident of Village Gopalpuri, .Post Gopalpuri, Tahsjl and District Dhamteri Baldeo Singh, Son of Shri Fakir Singh, aged about 55 years, Resident of Near Jhanda Chow Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, In front of Police Station TJkrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,UOO. \^ XI-yC—78 3^cT <^1^1<^^, ^T{1'yll<o, fs|<?'»l^^< ^IHdl *<41«b 3TI^T ?RT (^ll^ ^81T 3TT??T 5b^|cb ^, ^ 200 3TT^?T T15RE (^f^^) '^TTW^rf^T ^T^T Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sir 21^-2007:- Shri P.P. Sahu with Shri Shri Sudhir Agrawal, coi Heard. Oral order dictated on D L.C. BHADOO. J. The claimants have pre M.V. Act, 1988 being aggrieve the Additional Motor Accidenfe <=M^f<n<fli +ii^<?iT ^f^^l <F3i^i< '^3^Rm37T^T Shflm?sh<=»r Sin^ih Rnn pf Shri Daibeer Singh, aged about 45 years, Resident of Shyamnagar, In front of Guirudwara Shyamnagar, Raipur. Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raipur through the Branch Manager/Branch Office near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Main Road Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) - (Miscellaneous Appeal undjsr Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act) Division Bench: - Hon'bte Shri L.C. Bhadoo & ha.JJ. S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. |nsel forthe respondent No.3. ais. ferred this appeal under Section 173 of the |J bythe award dated 10-5-2007 passed by Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, in Claim case \.^ XI-9C—78 TwT^TFn^T, ^T{i'(-tll<5, fs)^iy^< W^V\{ sbHleb ^ 200 ^ni^r ??T f^Tii<=h ^T^ 3TT^T 5h^i<=b •< h^^ V 3H^?T ^T8F ( 4^f<l«l<i^T) favour of the claimants. It ha\ shall be entitled for interest @ 12-6-2006 i.e. date offiling oft^ The only grievance of t^ which has been assessed b^ between 40-45, multiplier of 1 °r)i^I<n<11i^i*i<A ^fe^t ^^K ^^m^TT^r wardodclQJm of Ro.5,82,528 in ^ further been directed that the claimants 6% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. e clajmpetition. !e ciaimants raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that in this c^se, looking to the age of the deceased, ^ the Tribunal in para-15 of the Award 5 ought to have been applied whereas, multiplier of 13 has been appltejj. Shri Sudhir Agrawal aft^r going through 2nd ScheduSe argued that proper multiplier has been appl|ed. < Having heard learned cc|unsel for the parties, we have perused the award. Even though wife of tl^e deceased namely, Malti has steted that the age of her husband was in of the award has observed thsjt since the deceased was working for the last 15-16 years as Chowkidail 1989, he has 4 children, the el^ age comes to 40-45 years. Ho\ age of the deceased is taken| annexed with the Motor Vehicl^ between 35-40, butthe Tribunal in para-15 in the Department, he was working since Jest child is 17 years of age, therefore, his wever, multiplier of 13 has been applied. If between 40-45. perusa! of 2nd ScheduJe ks Act shows that if the ag? of the victim is in between 40-45, the multjpl|er of 15 has to be applied. Therefore, admittedly, a wrong multiplier multiplier which is applicable in deceased, is 15. If multipljer which has been assessed a Rs.87,312. Therefore, appeal [has been applied by the Tribunal. Right |the present case, looking to the age of the ^f 15 is applied, then dependency amount ^ Rs.5,67,528/- should be increased by |to that extent is allowed. Dependency is \^ XI-HC—78 3:^T^TT?n^T, yrQ'y^l^, (sf^l'y^ ^TI^T^ f<Tii°h TT^H 371^T 5h^i<sh '^ o' ^ ^f> Barve ^l^dl sb<4|ch •••"••——••••••"•—•••—•••—"—••"•"•^ 200 W^RT XT5ra? (ij^rf^i^T) '^nw^ft^ STT^T [in addition to what has been assessed by |ons laid down by the Tribunal shall remain assessed at Rs.87,312/- morel the Tribunal. The othercondit|< as it is. Parties are entitled for c^rtified copy of this order Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge °bl^f<rt<fll ^l^^ ^fe^t <f^t^l< ^T 3TRFT 3TI^T Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ^..