i r HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENkH l l ' CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV $UPTA, C.J. HQN’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J z ) \ V 44 Misc. Appeal (C). No. 1342 of 2006. i X Piritram soni of late Bisru PateL aged about 35E years, Occupation — Agriculturist, Resident of viHage Dhurrabandha, P.o. Bijaradih, P.s. & Tahsil Bhata‘para, District Raipur (C.G.)‘ VERSUS 1. Fulsai Gupta, Sfo Samay La! Gupta, aged 42 years, OCcupation Driver, R/o viiiage Rajendra ”Nagar, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.. 7i Appeilant ' Claimant Respondents Harjinder Singh, S/o Harvansh Singh, age 45 years, occupation -— Business (Owner of yehicle) R/o viiiage Teiibangiha', Raipur , District Raipur (CG). ranch Manager, United india insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Korba Stadium, T.P. Nagar, P.S. and Tahsii & District Korba (C.G.) Naresh Kumar, w/o not known. Surieet Singh sfo not known, aged 65 years, Both are through Jeevan Bus Services, Pandri Bus Stand, Raipur, near Hora Complex, Raipur (CG). insurance Company, The Oriental insurance Company, Jail Road, Kachahari Chowk Ralpur (C G9 Miscellaneous Appeal under Se otor Vehicles Act ) B , ction 173 of ‘ M Preseni : ShriVimlesh Bajpai, coungelrforthe appeliant. r Shri H.B. Agrawai, Senior} Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for resporident No3. Shri Shailendra Sharma, c€3unsel for respondent No.6. ORDER ¥ (15th March, 2M1) The foHowing order of the? Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Piritram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor‘Accjdent Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, district Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.70/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,70,000/—, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of his father Bisru Patel in the motor accident on 24.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing 'of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close sorutiny of "the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant’s father Bisru Patel died on account of the injuriessustained byhimrin the motor accident on 24.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver'of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.O4-ZC/4152; as the above offendigg vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India insurance company Limited, and the insurance Company could ta ‘1‘ not establish any breach of the polic conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiable to pay the compen ation to the clairnant. 4) The Tribunal found that the sole claimant l.e. Piritram /could ' not establish that he was dependent on, his father deceased Bisru Patel in any manner and as such, awarded Rs.50,000/— towards compensation and Rs.2,000/— for funeral expenses. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.52,000/- @ 6% per ann‘um from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ’ 5) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, leaned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.52,000/- oniy. [ 6) Shri H.B. Agrawal, teamed Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Unitedlndia insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that ‘. as claimant Piritram was not dependent on his father deceased Bisru Patel, the compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsei for respondent \ No6 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, insurer of the Minibus in which the deceased was travelling also suppodeddhe award. x" 8) Deceased Bisru Patel was aged about 6O years on?the date of the accident. The sole claimant Piritram was agaed about 35 rk‘ , W? years on the date of the accident. The claimant in his evidence before the Tribunai has categorically ad itted that he has hie own independent source of income. Accordingj to this witness, his father used to earn Rs.150/— per day by selling vegetables and he himself also was earning Rs.100-150/— per dai/ by selling vegetables l separately. In his evidence, he has nowjhere stated that he was dependent on his father inspite of,his own independent income. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant could not establish that he was dependent on his father. 9) The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context )of the above mentioned broad features of the case and in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of smt. Manjuri Bera vs. oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1962, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellantl claimant for enhancement miww‘w N m Iii a m - “a of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. i . Sdl— Sdl' Rangnath Chandrakar ChierJusace l l J“d § e W¥ii