i? !';!i1r COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale 3ench : Hon'ble Shri DJIip Raosaheb Deshmukh, ,1 'v-) ^N^r' Appeliant IVI.A.CC.) N0.478/200S Narendranath S/o Ramavatar Tiwari, aged about 33 years, R/o Azad Chowk, Pendra, Djstrict Biiaspur. ResRondente. Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Dhannalai S/o Ram Kishan Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Goutam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Mohammad Musiim S/o Abduimanan, about 40 years .(Owner of truck) R/o Biiaspur Road, Manpuri, Raipur (C.G.) United India insurance Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.) Anita D/o Bhaiya Lal Sodhiya, W/o Laila Mahra, ag©dabout 32 years, R/o Viiiage Bharrapara, Pendra, Present Address: Patgawan, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Memo of Appeal under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988, Present Shri Dhirena'ra IViishra, counssi for the appeiiant. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsei for respondent No.3. ORAL (Passed on thls 25th day ofJuiy, 2008) Heard on admisslon. (2) The appeliant is aggrieved by an award dated 29-08-2006 passed by the Motor Accldents CIaims Tribunal, F.T.C., Pendra Road, Dlstrict Bilaspur (henceforth "the Tribunal") whereby in a death case, compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded. (3) Admittediy, the deceased was a bacheior. 'He was only son of the parents who were dead. The ciaimant is the uncie ofthe deceased. in his testlmony, the claimant neither stated that he was residing \wih the y IBNNN^ deceased nor that he was in any manner dependent on him. There was also nothing on record to show that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of any pecuniary benefit in case of continuance of iife of the deceased, In this manner, the Tribunal was wholly justified in awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/" cumulativeiy under the head of funera! expenses and rnentai agony. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant placed reiiance on U. P, Road Traosport Corporation, ASiahabad and ete», vs. Kni. 'Deepti others ete., A.I.R. 1985 Ailahabad 197. However, in that case, the Court was considering the amount of compensatjon payable to the husband on death of the wife. The case law cited by learned counsei for the appeltant is c!ear!y distjnguishabie. In my considered opinion, no ground for interference in the award passed by the Tribuna! is made out. (5) In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dlsmissed at the stage of admlssion. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumans