BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGi-1 COURJ'OREMHATTISSARHA'E BiLAspUR fe.e.i M.A.fEI N0. •sg-s /2007 "alSIBSI ABPELLANTS 1. ^^ RESPQNDEN'rS r!]: : :; Sarita alias CMukli GandHarv aged atiout 18 years, dauBtiter sf Late Qanesfi Bam fishfll-iarv, oceupation - Heus®wife. BabN; aged aBsyt 14 years, SQh sf ganesfi @ah3fiarv Devita, ageg about 12 years, gaugfiter Qf Lale Sahesfi QanShan/ ABBellanls No,2 and 3 are miriQrs, EFiraugh tlieir hatural guaFdlan - §istergapjta alias @nyUli aaUfl ESr of Laie Ci§B§sh(jan^ary. &H are resjaent sf vijlgge BinelQrl, R.S..iyungeli; Bistcief Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Kartik Ram, son ofShri •^ ERfiQtu llam Safnami, Fesident ef yillage Salkl-iaFi, B.g. Bamgarf'i; Taff^Ana Bisf Jsrygir-CHaflflM (C.G.) 2. Prem Prakasn Lat; son BfSllri ^ Sfianfcar Lat, resiaent .af NjFala Nagar, Near Bus Stana, BUaspyr (G,@.5 (OwFieF of offenQ'ma veBiele^ 3. TMe New Inflia Insurance BQmpany, Rajenglra Nagar Chswk, BHaspur (G.G.) A1PEAL UMDER SECTIQN 173 QF THE RQTQR VEHICLE ACT, me. SNHANgBMeNT @F AygUNT @F AWASB Ig <• HIGH COURT OF JUDtCATURECMHATnKSARM : BILASPUR ^iVJSIONBENCH CORAM HON'BLE SHRI H.L DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPEAL (Cl N0. 283 OF 2007 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Sarita alias Chukti Gandharv & Othere Versus Kartik Ram & Othere Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents. ORM.CTID6R (Passed on I" March, 2007) The foltowing oral order of the Court vras passed by Vijay Kumar Shnvastava, •). On 8-4-2005 Bhagwati Bai (sinoe deceased) aiongwith her retatives namely Sukhnandan and Ramkumar Gandharav white coming to hftungell by bus bearing registration No.CG-IO-A-1630 (forshort the offencling vehiote') met with an accident near Village Setganga Khaira, as a resutt of which the deoeased sustained injuries and succumbed to those on thespot 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 vehicle. Appeltants/claimants, who are the tegat representatives ofthe deceased, filed an application underSection 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'ttie Act, )988") against all the respondents. Responderts contested the claim. Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mungeli (forshort the TribunaF) after due enquiry passed the impugned award dated 20-11-2006 in claim case ^to.52/2005 whereby allowed compensation in favour ofthe appellants as per the detaii given betcw: ,' )-5 \ S.No. Head Amount 1. Lossofdependency 1,92,000=00 2. ForfunerErfexpenses 2,000=00 3. Forlossofestate 2,500=00 TOTAL 1,96,500«800 Feeling aggrjeved the appellarts have fited this appeal under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2) Leamed counsel for the appellants contended th^ the award passed by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. 3) We have gone through the award. We find that the income of the deceased was not proved by siAstantial legal wldence. Tnbunal veiy conspiouously appreoiated the evidence and theredter heki that appellants faited to prove that deoeased was engaged tn business of yegetabtes or was earning Rs.300/- or more daily. Tribunal, however, took the notioncd daily Income of the deceased ss Rs-50/- and recorded her annual Income Rs.18,000/-. Tribunal reduced 1/3"^ towarels her own eiq)enses and applying mulb'plier of 16, reconted compensation towaKte toss of dependency Rs.1,92,000/-. Tribunal further allcwed reasonable amount tcM<ards other heads as above. We are ofthe consklered view that flndlng offaots recoided by the Tribunat are neither perverae nor capricious- The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and masonable, ther^bre, we do not find any matertat to oondemn the findings recoided by the Tribunal and to interfere wth the awarel passed by the Tribunal. 4) In the result, the appeal being devoid cf substance desnves to be dlsmissedandisaccordinglydlsmissed. Nocosts.1 1^_ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge