6^ !N THE HiGH COl/RTOFJb'DICATU'P.EATBIL^SPVRCCG) APPELLANT CLAIMANT MISCELLANEOL'5 APPEAL N0.0 /1) "2) ^. ^-f^^ ^w^ .••"~ ^-^- --•^\ •9 v >ox" '^'"' RESPONDENT5/ .NON-APPLICANT 12001 Suresh KumarJgngje S/o 5t-i Mgogan Igl Jgngje, Age<i gbou-t- 30 yegrs, Kum^ri Sunifg P/o Sri M^nggn bl Jang4e, Age4 ^bout- 20 ye9B, Kumgri Prgmib P/o Sri Mgng^n Igl -i^ngde, Agej gboui - 18 yegrs, All resijence ye Vilhcje & Pos-t - -'oq, Thana - Telibandhg, Disft- R^ipur. CCG.) VERSUS /1) ff B^s^niGilbgreS/oSriSgrDai'u Gilhgre, Tbrougb: Fi>sfAi4 Cenfre Hospiiql, M^hgsgmund, Pistt-Mghgsgmund C.G. l/mesb K-umy Nar3nge,R./o Im^libhg^g M3b353mun4, Thana -M3b3s9mu4n, Distt- Mghgsgmunj CC.G. 3) Tbe New Incjig Insuqnce comp3ny Lfj., Tbrougb; Divlsion^l M^nager, Ku'tcbberi chowk, Jgil Roa4, Rgipur CC.G) / Miscellaneous Appeal under/section 173 Motof VehicIeAct 1988 -"—LJ—•— l-- L~—I-^-uuX-uuauuLb^_ttu -L XI-HC—78 liiis: i' .!l;.-;i STF^I'^T 'i'^Tf^' "-"-ITaff^TWW •r i^. ~5^ ^FTTc^, "©flt??^,feTRT^: .b.-..A....(oa;....":i-.J,2-00 i-Sq' ?Ci -^}^ roisBrTBgneffT ^E^f^fn' ^^ff ^ 'f^<:sr T q.-SlfOT 3II^iT HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, A^. C.J. & HON'BLE SHR1 SUNIL KUMARlSINHA. J. 31-01-2005. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel forjthe appellants. ,Shri C.R. Sahu, counset for ijespondent No.1. Shri Ati Asgar, counsel for re^pondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Heard. This appeal under Section 73 of the Motor Vehjcle Act, 1888 has been preferred by the appellanf^/Claimants for enhancement of the quantum ofaward passed by the le^rned Claims Tribunal. In this case, the rash and n^gligence on the part of the respondents is not in dispute. | Learned counsel for the parties submit that an award of Rs.3,20,000/- was passed in favout of the appellants. However, during the pendency of the present appeal a ^ompromise has been arrived at by the parties and an additional amount cjf Rs.1,80,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the appellants/claimants. A document to this effect has also been filed. tt is also agreed by both the parties that the amount due shall be paid within a period of two months jfrom today and in view of the aforesaid compromise, the appeltants do not ^ant to prosecute the appeal. We have gone through the i'ecords. The enhanced figure worked out on compromise appears to be jilst and proper. tn this view of the matter, It l^ dlrected that the appeflante/claimants shall get totalsum of Rs.5,00,0001'- as compensation and, therefore, the award passed by the leamed Clajms Tribunal is modified to the extent XI-HC—7^ :l]^t::] ;:qra^w, '^ihi^, 'ferrey .^.'•..A.-.'0t;..'5t:].1-°°l-s__ 'ft^ "an subbu ?'w ('^^^) •Rgiwaf?a w^i til^i-iuh 'qTiRff '81^St •3TRR. indicated above. In other word$, the appellants would get a sum of Rs.1,80,MO/- over and above vjrtiat has been already awarded by the tearned Claims Tribunal. It is ma^le clear that if the amount due is not paid to the appellants as per the com^romise arrived at by the parties within a period of tvsm months from today, Thus, the appeal stands arr'ivedat by the parties. We, hcwever, very much counsel for the parties. Counsel's fee as per rules. CertifiedcopY^speiTules Sd/- Acting Chief Jusdce ^ |he appellants shall be entitled to charge interest @ 9% per annum fror^i the safd date till its realtzation. The direction in relation to apportionnlent, if any, given in the award shall also apply to the enhanced amount. disposed of in terms of compromise appreciate the efforte made by learned Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -=^."-...1^.5^;