^SS^^S^'i1^! ^^- lNTHEHIGHCOVR.TOFJUDIQ\Tl/R.EATBItASPiyRCC.G) ^ MISCELt^NEOL/5 APPEAL N0.^11/2004. APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^ft) ^ RESPONPENT NON-APPLICANT w ^'^^ '^••''d^ ^y ^ ,.^;>?' ^•y^ ^s^ ^f Rgm Pr9s34 S/o Ssri Keju R^m Vermg Age4 ^boiii- 35 ye^K, Kumari Bgi Wife dfSri RTm Piqsgj Vermg. Age4 abou-f:- 33 yegrs, R/o Villgge & Posi Office Kharora, Distt- Raipur(C.G.) -^. VERSVS Deepak Goyal S/o Sti Ngrendf? Ng-tb Goygl, R/o New Sfanii Ngggr Qr.No, 18/50 Raipur Tbgng- Civil Line Rgipuc, Disft- RgipuTCC.G.) Rajbani Singb G^renql. R/o Qr.No: 2V59 Civil Line RgipufCC.G.) Truck No. C.G. 04.ZC- 5103. The New In4ia Insurgnce Compgny Limite4., Thtough: Pjvisional Mgngger, The New In4i3 Insurgnce Comp^ny Limi'te4,J9il R.og4, RgipurCC.G) Miscellaneous Appeal undef/see±ioW^75MotorVeliicle Ad: 1988 lllifr 1'ii'(11i::' ;:M tva^'^iiUh^a^t,£3sss^as^f^^'^.-,1^^-. KI-HC—78 d^cj ^liqiCTZT, ciiTll+f'lis, TsT^ra1 ..b..l..4;.^s:..3.l.l.2-.?oh. <';;':i¥f °nl R-TW ! "swwaiinq; TOiRK ^fta SffR^ •WfeiNtTtirctf-q fe!3t ^•(CIT •^-stfm ant^ Division Bench: HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, ^g. C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAft StNHA, J. 31-01-2005. Shri S.C. Venna, counsel f(»rtheappellants. Shri Ali Asgar, counselfor fespondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Heard. This appeal under Sectiorj 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellahts/Claimants for enhancement of the quantum of award passed by the (sarned Claims Tribunal. In this case, the rash and r|egllgence on the part of the respondents is not in dispute. Learned counset for the psjrties submit that an award of Rs.52,000/- was passed in favour of the app^llants. However, during the pendency of fte present appeal a compromis^ has been am'ved at by the parties and an additional amount of Rs.48,0p0/- has been agreed to be paid to the appellants/claimants. A documefit to thls effect has also been flled. It is also agreed by both the parties tHat the amount due shall be paid within a period of two months from today and in view of the aforesaid compromise, the appellants do not want to prosgcute the appeal. We have gone through the records. The enhanced figure worked out on compromise appears to beljust and proper. In this view of the matter; it is directed that the appellarrts/claimants shall get total sum of Rs.1,00,oqo/-as compensation and, therefore, the award passed by the learned C|aims Tribunal is modified to the extent ' 1 indicatecf above. In other worc(s, the appellant would get a sum of •E-HC—7i + '^^ 'S'ST -3nqT?H, "^^mpTC, l<^d!'L11< ..b-A.'.i0?.:.^.'1.!1^'6* sub :y." -f ^' \A^ ^ qiPlfera^ •(iTOcff •&•fgi^ Zpii^K ^sTRpian^r Rs.48,000/- over and above wt|at has been already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ma<^e ctear that if the amount due is not paid to the appellants as per the cojnriromise arrived at by ttie parties within a period oftwo months from today, (he appellants shall be entitled to charge interest @ 9% per annum fron^ dlrection in relation to apportionm apply to the enhanced amount. Thus, the appeal stands the said date till its realization. The ^nt, If any, gh/en in the award shall also disposed of in tenns of compromise amved at by the parties. We, however, very much ^ppreciate the efforts made by learned counsel for the parties. Counsel's fee as per rules. Certified QSpy a? per rylesj Sd;- The Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge