APPELLANT RESPONDENTS $§ing§a Bench BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR Mlsc. APPEAL (CL l 1 g/ OF 2006 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur Versus 1. Smt. Saroj Thakur, W/v Aged abdut 29 Years, W / oLateShriYogeshThakur, 2.), Kumari Damim' Thakur, Aged about ()1 Year, D/o Late Shri Yogesh Thakur, minor represented through natural guardian mother Smt. Saroj Thakur Both R/ o Opposite Santosh Bhojnalay, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimants) 3... Shri Dhananjay Kaushik S/o Shri Latelram Kaushik, aged about 30 years, w R/ o Near Country Liquor Shop, Village Sankari Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle) Shri Rajput, learned cou sel for the appellant pressed this appeal only on the ground that the fin ing recorded by the learned M.A.C.T. that the deceased Yogesh had an dditional income of Rs.1000/- from other sources was based on no evide ce. A Having heard the learne counsel‘for the appellant, l have perused the record. The testimony of Rajen ra Kumar Tamrakar-AW/Z, reveals that Yogesh was not working full ti e with him and he was employed with him during certain period of the ye ln this view of the matter, a presumption was rightly drawn that the dec ased must have had some earnings from other sources also. The decea ed was married and had wife and a minor daughter to support. The findi g recorded by the learned M.A.C.T. that the deceased would have earn d an additional meager sum of Rs.1000i- in a month from other sources c uld not be faulted with; ln this View of the matter, i am of the considere opinion that the learned M.A.C.T. has rightly assessed the monthly i come of the deceased at Rs.4000/‘-. No a . XI-HC-78 3a 211mm, Wan—«r W ( é) JV) ~ Q- N y v /$*I > @ mm ...o...o;...osook....' Fa; 200 é 311%“ w hm? mm (Kai-ma) amtazha Irma‘r ’E feat (lat—a3 ammmméa $mm 0W1 212006 Shri Sachin Singh Rajpull, counsel for the appellant. Heard. Shri Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the following: (a) That the offending v hicle was insured by the appellant ; (b) That the appellant ailed "to establish breach of the terms of the policy; (c) That the decease had monthly earnings of,gRs,.30001— per month as he was a ommission agent indulged in the business of recovery of moni s in wood shed. XI—HC-78 mm ...u.nu. m 200 é mm<W> other point was urged in this appeal by the learned counse! for the appellant. ‘I ‘ in View of the above,’thi:; Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit and Consequently, is accordingly M.(C).P. dismiésT N . at 2166/2006, the stage for of admission. stay is also disposed of. M Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge C.C. as per rules. Kvr Urea “A