G ^ \^ tNTHEHIGH APPELLANT Cl^tlMANT ICATUR.E.AT BlLASPyfcfC.G) ^^1./2004. ^) C2) /'- WisionBench Rajnj Baj WhowofUteTiharB RamSahu Age4 gbout - 48 yegrs, Ramesh S/o Late Tiliai-u Ram Sghu Age4 about - 28 years, Naresh S/o U-te Tlhacu Ram Sahu • Age43botrt - 25 years All Resiiience ofViIlage- Navapara, ys» .T« Dtstt-RaipurC.O. R.ESPONDENT NON-APPLiCANT ' ^^..^ v^edb"^^6^ " VERSUS C1) Moh4.R3fikS/oSriNuM ^ Mohammad,R/o -Villaqg Karmg Ubari, Peliee Sation- Karma, DtiS»-ltIahaba4 u.p. Prasent A44ress; Kumari P/o Sn Babu Mlya, Aged abou-i - 37 Beligaon, Police Sla'tioo- Kent, Pistt-lliahsbaj B^siAbemgd S/o Sri Babu Miyg, 37, BeligsoR, police Station- K<ent, Distt- lllghgbad, V.P. C5/ TheNewlndiaInsuranceCompany Limrte4., Throyg.b; PivLsiona! Man34er, Tbe New Indig insyrance Company Umited,,JaiI Roa4, Raipur, Distt •- Raipur C,C. a Miscellaneou' under/sedion 173 Motor Vehicle Ad 1988 Ml F^i:! I-HC—78 3D^?! Wft-fi'* ?TaTT 3TT^T ghtlT^ ,.r '; -.i '3^T;'^ii<ii<a'4, a'tti'y'iis, fs(<ni'>-i^< h A'Ob.'z-MI^Z.oc^ •^.200 .Sn^I'qSCT'C'jqt^ti^) wiwsfCTsn^t Division Bench: HON'BLESHRIFAKNRUDDIN, &HON'Bl.ESHRISUNn;KUMArt t^a 31-01.2005. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel fo| Shri Anand Kumar Gupte, Company. Heard. This appeal under Sectipn been preferred by the appellarl quantumof award passed by the In this case, the rash and is not indispute. Learned counser for ttt4 Rs.1,87,500/- was passed in pendency of the present appeal a] parties and an addittonal amqynlj paidtothe appellante/claimants. filed. It is also agreed by both paid within a period cSVmi month^ compromise, ttie appellantsdo We have ^one thrftugh th'4 out on compromise appears to bejl In Wls vteworttie matter, it] shall flet totaL^um of Rs3,^,S •theappellants. ^unsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance 1173 of theMbtor Vehicle /^t, 1988 has ppellarlts/Claimants for enhancement of the Warned Claims Tribunal. n|sglig6nce on the partofthe respondent? favodr soo/. -award passed by ttie leamed ©l|iims cftN[<Tl^"ll 'HFT^f "&' ft^ <f^^R ^sifgiTsn^t G.J. SINHA.J. ^parties submit tfiat an swvard of of the appellants^^However, during the 1 compromise has; been amved at by the of Rs.72,000/- has been agreed to be lAdocumehtto N&effecthasalso been partieSttiattheamountyyest'ialt be frbm teday and in view ofttleaforesakl prosecutettTeappeal. records. The enhancedifigure worked ^standproper. 1 is direeted ftat We appeljant&felaimants B/- as GompensatioiEi and^therefore, the Tribunal is 'modified! to'the wet&nt <Me noliwantte XI-HC—78 7ST -^WWif, •S-Swi'a, Y^V\W^i. . < ^\. A«».2-M11^-00(-| 3T(^51 'TO97 (i^I^'^T) ar^iqii f<-fi°ii 7^' 3ni?i ^w^ 'f '??<H^R ^itsa ^iCt^l subbu o^ Al'f ^ s^ w ^rqi^^ iw^f "£ft^£^<f^ ^R ^sifaH sn^i indicated above. In other wofd^, ttie appellant would get a sum of Rs.72,000/- over and above wh^t has been already awarded by the leamed Claims Tnbunat. Kis naadjectearthatiftteamountdueis notpaid to the appellants as per the cbmp interest @ 9% per annum fron^ •omise arrived at by the parties within a period of two morrths frorri today, 1(iftappellante shall be enUtledto charge the said date till ite realization. The direGtion in relatjon to appOrtiorim^nt, if any, given in Uie award shall also applyto ttieenhanced amourit. Thus, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise arrh/edatbytheparties. We, however, very much ^ppreciate the efltorts made by leamed counsel fortheparties. / Counsel's feeas per rules, | Certified co(>y,as aer rules.) Sdf- The Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ t' •'t.