i Both are resident of village - Ghat Pendari, Police station - Pratappur, Tahsil - surajpur, Distt. surguja, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS w” ,1 RESPONDENTS -- NON§A?ELICANTb ‘M/a Durga Motor Service, Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja. Through : Brijendra cupta, son of Not‘known, aged about 42 years, R/o. old Bus stand, Ambikapur, r Distt. surguja (chhattisgarh). / womEg) 2) ailash Prasad chaurasiya, Son of Biganpaneri, aged about 47 years, Occupation — Driver, R/o. Bartikala J; Chalgali, Tahsil - wadraf Nagar, Distt. surguja (Chhattisgarh). (DRIVER ) v, 3f India Insurance co. Limited, Thr ough Gen eral Man ager, Re gd. office and Head Office,,Building No.87 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai 40001 (ENSURER) ...02 _ . Hy . €41 /§/ “‘jE/HIGH COURT OF CHHAmgiéGARI—I AT BILAspUR gas.) / M a . —2 #‘tw X APPELLANTS k _: 1) , amnarayan, son of Late Baldev agf‘g/a'bout 37 years, cLAIMXNTS / 2)/§hivnarayan, son of Late Ram Baldev, aged about 32 years, IN \ \ 1 i Vnhr TWWW @WW HAMZW'LgggiwQ wmrm (Wu) mmmm¥i smiwwmw~m®~fm :w m ml Division Bench : ‘ HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDI Ag C J N i ; HON BLE SHRI SUNIL KUM R SINHA 8 J 31 -01 -2005. Shri Ashok Kumar Shuk counsel for the appellants. l , Shri Ashok Gupta, c unsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Co‘mpany. ' This apgeal under Secti$n 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred. by the appelantslClaimants for enhancement of the quantum of award passed byt learned Claims Tribunal ln this case the rash an negligence on the part of the respondents rs not m dispute ‘ Learned counsel for the arties submit that an award of Rs.77,000/- was passed in favour of the ap ellants. However, during the pendency of the present appeal a compromi e has been arrived at by the parties and an additional amount of Rs 60a 00/- has been agreed to be paid to the appellants/claimants A document to thrs effect has also been fled lt rs also agreed by both the parties that the amount due shall be pard Within a period of two months from today? and in view of the aforesaid compromise. the appellants do not want to prdsecute the appeal. We have gone through ‘ e records. The enhanced figure worked Heard. . ' l ; l \e- /// ‘w- out on compromise appears to bk just and proper. In this view of the matterg it is directed that the appellants/claimants shall get total sum of Rs.1.37.l%00l— as compensation and. therefore. the award passed by the learned tlaims Tribunal is modified to the extent i A ‘ W “My.” x . XLHC 7g 3aW, WWm, mfg KA' DO‘ 2A4?) 7351‘ my€§i§g$3 @_§ 2G$ WWW (Wm mat ma swam _L_, %‘ am 371%?! § indicated above. ln other words, the appellant would get a sum of Rs.60,000!- over and above at has been already’awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. lt is m e clear that if the amount due is not paid to the appellants as per the com romise arrived at by the parties within a period of two months from today the appellants shall be entitled to charge l Interest @ 9% per annum fro the said date till Its realization. The E ‘ u direction in relation to apportion ent, if any. given in the award shaii also f i apply to the enhanced amount. The appeal stands dispo ed of in terms of compromise arrived at‘ by the parties. l 4 We, however, very much appreciate the efforts made by learned counsel for the parties. Counsel‘s fee as per rules . Certified copx§ as per rule . as ""- Sd/- . Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha :l Judge l Chief Justice / subbLv Acting