HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.3120F2010 APPELLANT Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Smt. Shail Bai.W/o Renu Devdas aged about 42 years R/o Ganj Para Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (CG). Versus 1. Arvind Singh S/o Savinder Singh aged about 53 years, R/o Saktinagar Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (CG). (Driver of Truck No. CG 07-8663) 2. Pawan Singh Rajput, S/o Deepchand Rajput R/o Ganj Para Durg ,Distt. Durg (CG). (Owner of Truck No. CG 07-8663) 3. National Insurance Company Umited, Gil Complex near Gurudwara, Station Road Durg. Through: The Regional Manager. Regional Office, Aakash Ganga Parisar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (Insurer of Truck No. CG 07-8663) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehScles Act. 1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri SP Sahu, Advocate for appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 26th day of March,2010) Heard on admission. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 23.11.2009, passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FCT), Durg, in Claim CaseNo. 193/2009. The brief facts of the case are as under: i. On 02.02.2007 Rajim Bai, aged about 60 years (since deceased), met with an accident with Truck bearing registration No. CG 07-8663 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. T'^. ^•"•\ ":. ii. The applicant i.e. grand matemal daughter of the deceased Rajim Bai, aged about 40 years, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensatlon for the death of deceased in the said accident on the premise that she is the only legal representative of deceased. iii. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material available on record, held the respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of the Truck responsible for the said accident and awarded Rs. 78,500/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of deceased in the said accident. 3. Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side and the same deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. Undisputedly, the appellant is not dependent upon the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased and also looking to the fact that appeltant is not dependent upon the deceased, in the considered opinion of this court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal isjustand reasonable. 6. The Supreme Court in case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.1, has held in para 13 as under: "13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there js absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application 1 2007 (10) SCC 643 ^-•^^•^ ^M 7. has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. White assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applled because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly the liabiJity of the person who is liable and the person who Is to indemnify the Hability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency." Therefore, in the facts situation of the present case and in view of above referred judgment of Supreme Court, 1 do not find and illegality or irregularity in the award warranting interference of this court. The appeal, being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge