HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIJAV KUMAR SHKIVASTAVA ffiISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL N0,622 OF 2006 (Ciaimeints) 1. Smt. Girja Bai, widow of Late Shiv Kumar Singh Chauhon, aged about 28 years. 2. Ku. Kamini, daughter of Late Shiv Kumar Singh Chauhan, aged about 8 years. 3. Rupesh Kumar, son of Late Shiv Kumar Singh Chauhan, aged cxbout 6 years. 4. Ku. Kadam, daughter of Late Shiv Kumar Singh Chauhan, 5. fiauteran Singh, son of Late Bharat Singh, o.yd about 55 years. 6. Smt. Chitrekha, wifs of ©autoranSingh, aged about 48 years. No.2 to, 4 are minors through naturat guardian mother-appetiant No.l Ai! r&sidents of village Kon9iya- Kala, &ist"ict &urg, at present Ut/y Vs. resident of Shankar Nagar, Tehsil & District Durg (C.6.) 1. Hemant Yadav, son of Punaram, Yadw, aged about 38 years, resident of Santarabadi, Durg, Tehsil & bistrict Durg (C.6.) 2. The Mansger, M/s Durg Bus Service, burg, 6.E. Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, Opposite New ius Stond, burg, Tahsil & bistt. Durg (C.6.) 3. Senior Brcnch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Tehsil <& Distt. Durg. Present : Mr. Sautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for ttie appellants. (Passed on 31st January, 2007) Foliowinfl oral order of ths Court was passed by Vi.ioy This is an appeai under Section 173 of -iiie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act, 1988") directed against the award dated 26.9.2006 passed by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg ^ienceforth "the Tribunai") in Ctaim Cdse No.174/05 whereby c compensation of fts.4,37,000/- has been awarded in favour' of the appellants, fee'.ing aggrieved this appeal for enhancement of compensation. ^*w ~~1 WS5SS^!!^^SSS'S^S51^'I^^^Si^^^^E^^^^^^^S^^Ss^^^^^^^^^s^^^ fft^- 1 2. On 25.2.2005, when Shiv Kumar Chauhan (since deceased) was going to &indai Petrol Pump along with his friend namely Peetambar in a Hero Puch moped, he met an accident with a bus bearing registration number C607-ZA-0384. Shivkumar received injuries and succumbed to those. At the time of accident, respondent No.l was driving the offending vehicle in cx rash and negligent manner, it was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. Appeliants No.l to 6, who are wife, children, father & mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.40,43,000/-. Respondents No.l & 2 remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 contested the claim. 3. Learned counsel for the cppellouits contended that learned Tribunal erred in recording the deceaseds monthly income. From perusal of the record and evidence adduced by the appellants, it is monifest that no legal evidence to establish income of the deceased has been adduced by the appeltants. In those circumstances, learned Tribunal, for assessment, has correctiy allowed monthly income Rs.3,000/- and accordingly, altowed compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- towards dependency. Learned Tribunal further altowed Rs.10,000/- to appeliant No.l towards consortium; Ks.45,000/- to appellants No.2 to 4 towards loss of love &, affection; Rs.20,000/- to appellants No.5 & 6 towards loss of their son and also allowed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral sxpenses. Finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal does not appear to be iilegal or perverse. 6. No other points have been raised durin9 the course of arguments. 7. The beinadevoid of inerit is ^z Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- nhuendraMishra Judge