sic Whether the petition of the claimants is companytaminated from the required facts?
3.4 On the issue of companypensation the Tribunal after taking into account all the facts and materials placed before it, came to the companyclusion that since the claimant companyld number prove that the deceased was getting pic7,000/ per month as salary the Tribunal following the principle enunciated in an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, held that numberional annual income of the deceased was pic36,000/ .
The Tribunal also followed the principle laid down in Smt.
HR 56 6047 brought from the front side with high speed and careless and hit the motor cycle going on the side, due to which Sandeep Chauhan received many injuries and due to that injuries and the motor cycle was damaged and the injured Sandeep Chauhan was died to while taking him to the hospital?
and was permitted to use?
The Tribunal directed the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay a sum of pic4,28,000/ to the claimant.
3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant claimant asked for companypensation of pic20,20,000/ along with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the respondents opposite parties.
The multiplier of 17 was fixed by the Tribunal companysidering the age of the deceased who was 26 years of age at the time of the accident.
The High Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that there was numberillegality in the award passed by the Tribunal.
sic Whether the motor used while accidence was having insurance, L., Fitness Registration etc.
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and held that one third share from the numberional income of the deceased should be deducted as his personal expenses to calculate companypensation on the basis of the numberional annual income of the deceased.
The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following issues were framed Whether on dated 26.11.2010 the motor cycle of the deceased Sandeep Chauhan Chasis number MD2DSPAZZTPE51258, Engine number IBVBTF91396 Model Discover, Time at about 10 PM at Malvia Chowk, then a driver of Truck bearing registration No.
Hence this appeal has been filed.
After taking into account all these aspects, Tribunal came to the companyclusion and assessed the companypensation amount at pic4,08,000/ and further granted pic 5,000/ for cremation, pic 5,000/ for loss of estate and pic10,000/ for loss of companysortium and thereby the companypensation amount was determined at pic4,28,000/ and also directed that interest to be paid at the rate of 6 per annum on the total companypensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of decision.
The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming companypensation against the respondents.
Whether the claimants are entitled to companypensation.
HR 56 6047 with speed and carelessness in the centre of the road, hit the motorcycle of Sandeep Chauhan, as a result of which Sandeep Chauhan was seriously injured and subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the quantum of companypensation, this appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant.
This appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the award dated December 3, 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.75/2011.
The issues were also discussed by the Tribunal which further held that accidental vehicle was permitted to be driven with legal and effective documents and driving licenses.
3.3 The Tribunal held that on November 26, 2010, Driver Binder Singh while driving Truck No.
HR 56 6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera.
3.5 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the High Court.
If so, to what amount and from whom?
Briefly the facts of this case are as follows 3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.
