BILASPUR (C.G.l v. Parasnath

Branch Manager, Branch-Thane, Through - Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Krishna Complex, First Floor, Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION^S OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^ HIQWGOURrO(s€?HHAtTtS<3N!tH:BJLASPVR Division Bench Coram: Hon^eShriH.I-,Dattu, CJ& Hon'Ne Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J MISC. APPEAL (CINO. 41 OF 2007 ^PPELLANTS: l-aQ<miBaiandottiers. Versus SESJPON8ENTS: Parasnath and ©friers. Pres^nt: 8hriJitendraOyFta, coynsei^fo Noneforotherrespondents. :01%AI,_ORDiR , - (Passedon1SmPebruary, ;2007) Thefollowingoratorder^^^ passed byiVijay Kvmar Shrivastava,J. This is "an appeat under SeGtion 173 of the Motor VehieSes Act, "the Act, 1988") against the award dated 09/06^2006 1988 (henceforth, passed by Jst^^^^^ A^ (henceforth, "the Tribunai'^ in Ctaim Case No. ^2^2006, for enhancement of comDensation. 2) The factuat mafrix of the case, in brief, .s is that on 14/01^004 at about 10.00 p.m. when KJieduram Yadav (stnc?e deceased) ricitng his vehicte Hero Puch bearing No. CG.07SP|f5542 was coming from .\.-.;.., .'.•" . /':"•.'••''.'" '. ":'1"'. -. "! /:'—.•..1 '.':. '•. • Tedesara to village Aryora, resj^ndent No^ "'.' .. MH-04/B©/©102in a rash and negligent manner dashed ttie Hero Puch. Xheduram Yadaysystained injyrJes^^^^^a^ . ...•".1 •::. ~ • 1:

' who are legaj/.repNsentatives of:the l<deceased^ fSted : ani^ a(>plicafion? under'; ..a:!':;:;', 'i ...''.'<.^ •:;1\^^^ l': :1-:'::': /' Section 1(S6^ ;the;'Act,;-^988:jfo^^^ respondents ;wf^^ai^\.driver, :cwn^ •'^ wl^ Ifi.e^: w::iv s^&^sKii^S!Sfft- -2- * Respondents No.1 anct 2 remained ex parte i in ttie case. Howeyer, respondent No.3 contested the claim. j 3) Learned Tribunal after appreciating frie evidence adduced by the appeiiants, vide impugned award ailowed compensation of Rs.3,36,600/- under various heads as beiow: a) b) c) d) e) Loss of dependency Rs.2,81,600/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Consortium Rs. S.OOO/- l.ossofexpectancy of Sife. Rs. 35,00©^ ••;^... lossofestate Rs. 5,000/- Total ^s. 3,38^ 4) Learned counsel for the appeijants contended that iearned TribunaS erred In deducting 1/3Ed of Income from the j IncQme of the deceased. Further, urged that towards funeral ©xpenses Rs.10,000/- has been ,.',,•. ^^arded which is on iower sidle, so also amouftt awarded on other heads .l'1" . :—; is not just and proper-7'-^ , . < - ; ? 5) • Laxmi (PW/1) in her evldence ^tated that her husband was earning ^- Rs.2200/- per month. According to Ex.P/7 Sssued by empSoyer totat emolumente of ttie deceased was Rs.2124/-, therefore, learned Tribuna! accepted the monthly income of the deceasedi Rs.2200/-. For assessing ioss of income, he adopted the method in accordance with Sheduie 2 of Sectlon 163-A of the Act, 1988. Learned Tribunal after adjustlng 1^3rd .fowards: deceased: own^expenditufe, apptyingj^ finding ahd aGcordingly aSlowed compensation of Rs.2,81,600/- •y''' towards dependency^^- On.some of the.; other heads;-h^^^ amount adrYiss^sble, even he aitowed com ^ ••^l^ -^- .c:»: expectancyoflife.lnabsenGeofanyattac^ ,inclJned, at'th1si|uncture,.tp^step^ deductlon of 1/3rt ^m ^e 3^ of deceased is conceme^t that according to Schectule 2 of Sectjon 163-Ai of the Act, 1988, ©ven €rtherwise, onthe1^cteandcir^^^ isreasonabteandiegai. (6) We are of the considered view tiat the award passed by the Tribunal does not cali for any interfere appeai being devoid of sybstarioe desew^ accordingiydismissedsniirnine. Nocosts. Raju Sd/- Chief Jusdce V.K. Shrivastava •4; ^ k \;,