^ •SvSI "iliqiiTi-q, ytfl+f'Ko, R|<?ll<dy im?ir giqf^--pfl"^^;)--{-^--S<S---^ 200^, 3v^T 'WK CyityisfJ) '^ sn^i ?>i R-ti+ '^sn' 3;n^T^)Hi4) qifiii^i*I1*i ^i*i^f'^^^1 <t^^$i< i?3ffin3ii^r tC)No.12S8of2007 Lakhanlal Chheduram S/o Late , aged 45 years. Smt. Janki Bai Kashyap, S/o Shri Lakhan Lai Kashyap, aged about 42 years. Ku. Anusuiya, D/o Lakhan Lal Kashyap, aged about 17 years.. Ku. Parvati, D/o Lakhan Lal Kashyap, aged about 16 years. Manoj Kumar, S/o Lakhan Lal Kashyap, aged about 15 years. Appellant No.3 to 5 minors, through natura! guardian father Lakhan Lal Kashyap, appeliant No.1 Aii resident of Village and Post Pakariya (Jhulan), Tahsi! and P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Krishna Das, S/o Sukritdas @ Sudhudas Manikpuri, R/o Chandipara, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle Metador NO.CG.-10/A/9247). Manoj Jaiswal, S/o Tarachandra Jaiswa!, R/o Kukardih Kera (Chiihati), Post Mainkchaura, District Biiaspur (C.G.) (Registered Owner of Vehicle Matador No.C.G.-10/A/924). The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisiona! Manager, Djvisional OfRce Office Bus-Stand, Bilaspur, District Bi!aspur (C.G.) —78 an^T^T'Raw ^vfl an^r sh+iicti < 3rcT "41-tll^, »Tfl<H'IS, Rlci'l'yy ^INdl (bNleh^ ......M.^..L^..^...^^S3...f.S^ 200 an^r iisiw ('3^5951?) ?WTW ^rfer 3ii^r -z/ tsc. Appeai ui9 Shri Gautam Khetra]|)al, Counsel for the appeilants. Hon'ble Shri Justitte Sunii Kumar Sinha^J, Heard on admission) The ciaimants, who| the deceased - Vinod havef the Motor Vehicies Act, 1^ amount, being aggrieved b^ Second Additiona! Motor At Claim Case No.25/2006) assessing Rs.15,000/- pe|i deducted 1/3 amount of by the deceased as his dependency to the tune multiplier of 18, the Tribun^i tune of Rs.1,80,000/- Apatt under the head of funera! love and affection, Rs.50QO/. thereby, jn ail, an award| passed. c61'4ld'>ft;i'4t^<'Tf Tf,f^%t <^l't-$i< ^siRnsii^r 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. :e L.C. [are father, mother, sisters and brother of preferred this appeal under Section 173 of 188 for enhancement of the compensation the award dated 5/4/2007 passed by the fccident Ciaims Tribunai, Bilaspur (C.G.) in whereby, the learned Tribunai after year as the income of the deceased said income, which was being incurred expenditure and assessed ioss of of Rs.10.000/- per year. By applying determined the tota! dependency to the from this, Rs.5000/- has been awarded expenses, Rs.15,000/- under the head of !0/- under the head of !oss of estate and the tune of Rs.2,05,000/- has been personal ^y^^c-78 f^ •an^r?ii R-f ^TaIT 3fn^FT sh+<ich TE? "i<i-yi<?i<4, eiTfl+f'Ko, Rirti'yy WUvtl *KI* ^.....H..Q.:...GO.^..,^..o^ 200 an^?r 'v^ (1pf^??T) 'renwtifeT ai^r We have heard admission. Leamed counsel for\ had a cycte repairing shop 150/- per day, therefore, th^ Having heard learn perused the impugned awa| The learned Tribunal reasoning that no docume| been produced by the c| deceased was running a q has taken into consideratiod father of the deceased ani have been examined, and confidence to hold that the shop. The finding of the T\ we do not find any illegal Tribunal has assessed the i| year on notional income correct. In view of the abovej to be dismissed and is accd SdA L-C. Bhadoo ^arned counse! for the appellants on +l^|[d41*1 'RFRTf ^f.l^^l' <Ffl^l< ^aTRTiTsn^r the appel'antssubmits that the deceased through which, he used to earn Rs.100- income has wrongly been assessed. bd counsel for the appellant? we have •d. in para 10 and 13 of the award has given itary evidence or any other materia! has !aimants in order to establish that the ^cle repairing shop. The iearned Tribunal the oral evidence of Lakhan Lal Kashyap, j one more witness - Shivshankar, who held that their evidence does not inspire deceased was running the cycle repairini ribunal is based on sound reasoning and ty or infirmity in the said judgment.The ncome ofthe deceased as Rs.15,000/- per sasis and the finding of the Tribunai is the appeai being devoid of merits is liabie rdingiy dismissed. i' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge