^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M. A.f c ) N0. ^ of2007 "DNIslcm Be?i^ APPELLANTS laimants RESPONDENTS Non-Claimants \i Sadab Khan S/o Rustam Khan, aged about 9 years, Shoib Khan, S/o Rustam Khan, aged about 5 years, Both are minors through their natural guardian Father Rustam Khan. Rustam Khan S/o Mustafha Khan, aged about 38 years, All by Caste Muslim, R/o Shihava, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.).1 VERSUS 1. ^"" Shakeel Khan S/o Ramjan Khan, aged about 28 years, R/o H-ardibhatha Mainpur, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.). Mashih Khan S/o Majid Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Mouhdapara Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Building, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipiyr(C.G.). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPEAL fCl N0.53 OF 2007 APPELLANTS Sadab Khan & Others Versus RESPONDENTS Shakeel Khan & Others Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellarrts. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 1st March, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. On 27-10-2004 Khalida Parveen (since deceased) white coming to village Sihava by jeep bearing registratton No.CG-04-ZA-2214 (fw short "the offending vehicle") the same turned turtle, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to those on the spot. At that time the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, respondent No.2 is owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of the offending vehtete. Appellante/daimante, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, filed an apptication under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988 (forshort "the Act, 1988") against all the respondents. Respondents contested the claim. Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short "the Tribunaf") after due enquiry passed the impugned award dated 11-12-2006 in ctaim case No.23/05 whereby allowed cqmpensationjTL favour ofthe appellante as per the detail given below: 1 S.No. Head 1. Loss of ctependency 2. For consortium 3. For funeral expenses TOTAL Amount 1,80.000=00 10,000=00 10,000=00 2,00,000=00 Feeling aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 for enhancement of Ihe compensation amount. 2) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the award passed by the Tribunat is notjust and reasonable. 3) We have gone through the award. tncome of ttie deceased was not proved in accordance with the settled legal provisions. Tribunal meticulously considered the evidence adduced by the appellants to support income of the lady and held that appellants failed to prove her monthly regular income. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted notional income Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd and applying multiplier of 18 allowed loss of dependency Rs.1,80.000/-. Tribunal further sympatheticaliy allowed amount as above towards other heads even more than the amount prescribed in the schedule. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. We do not find any material to condemn the findings those are finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal. 4) The award passed by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor capricious. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed and isappordingly dismissed. Noco^ts. 1 1 Sd/- i i V.K. Shrivastava j Judge Sd/- Chief Justice ^""•' ~