INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH 'yjc' ^•'>w <s«&«.^•••" Respondents AT BILASPUR :-^^G Appellants (Claimants) „ A.^:.. 9^U'^J^:' ..-y:<y^ •yye:' > 2) 3). 4) M.A.(C.)No.;r^..-^W..../2010(D.B.) Smt. Munni Bai Sahu W/o Late Prabhu Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, Kumari Minakshi Sahu Aged about 13 years, D/o Late Prabhu Ram Sahu, Gend Lal Sahu S/o Late Prabhu Ram Sahu, (Adopted Son) Aged about 08 years, Tomeshwar Sahu S/o Late Prabhu Ram Sahu, Aged about W^\cw^ 07 years,^e^pon^.^'No. 2 to 4 Legal Guardian through Minor mother Munni Bai Sahu All are resident of village Nahar Khapri Post Tamora, P.S. Anda, Tahsil Gunderhehi, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1) Mukesh Kymar Thakur, aged about 28 years, S/o Sharda Charan Singh, R/o Subhash Chandra Ward Kanker Post Subhash Chandra Kanker, Tahsil SE District Kanker (C.G.) 2) Smt. Pushpa Kachlam W/o N.R. X" Kachalam, R/o Shri Ram Nagar Ward, Kodejunga Collony Kanker, Tahsil 8s District Kanker North Bastar (C.G.) '•t I- ^) 5) 6) 7) 8J/ The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager Branch Office, Ahead of Vijya Bank Nehru Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil 85 Districf Durg (C.G.) Damin Bai Sahu Aged about 25 years, Wd/o Doman Sahu, R/o Village Sanwrabandha, Post SUoti, P.S. Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Nemin Bai Sahu, aged about 23 years, Wd/o Navkumar Sahu, R/o Village Odragahan, Post Nipani, Post Rani Tarai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Triveni Bai Sahu, aged about 21 years, Wd/o Kamlesh Sahu, R/o Village Dundera, Post Utai, Police Station Utai, Tahsil 85 District Durg (C.G.) Lata Bai Sahu, aged about 20 years, Wd/o Fekram Sahu, R/o Village Gujra, Post Gujra, (Pandar) Police Station 85 Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Gayatri Bai Sahu, aged about 18 years, Wd/o Virendra Kumar Sahu, R/o village Amadi, Police Station 8s Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) '•iT <Q< 'WSi&s.: MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF CQMPENSATION AWARD ?^ ! f.''1 l:is w. ?»1- HH3H COUKT OFCHIWmSGARHAT BBJ 1>1«B3, Sinate Bench: Hon'bteSlm Jiatfce PrashantKumarKBteteauifet,. MAtCT No. STO QflSyiO ^ ^ APPELLANTS , Smt. Munni tei Sahuandtttrew »a, Versus ' ..--•.-^.--••----.•..-•-".;." RESPONDENTC MukeshMumarThdatFand<ott *^s»ga. MBCELLANEOUS APPEAL UtUMERSECTION ira<»a<Kyr(»w^ ,VH«:LEJU^::'1^g2SSgggS%|£^ Shri C.R. Satwi, coiareelfortbeappellante. ORAL OIUMER tWMSQWSS The ctaunants ha ,j»!T|fe|T^;|lwi:'nstant^j|i^A:in^ 173 of M<*M- Vehtete Act for enhancemertofthe ainoiKrt awaided|fc^>^m<t,,. •,«»"!'i8jj> theClainreTribwialintheirfavour. - • ••: •;-.--.--s^-K.w^^^^^ (2) The appete^ are,|tepen<tHite,on.Pra^J^an,|S^a^^ in a nwAor accidert irwoh^ Bdlao yelucte^beamg;feg(^^ C.G.19-D/0227 wi 2(M)6^2009. The sak* vehtete was dtwenib^tBn^ 's r^pcwxtent Miriresh m»r^Tl|al^^hia:Fm^a^,n!^||^^itKar^^ dashed s^nst^|te,deoea®e<l,whQ.vi^<»imi^^l^^ vifeige Nahar,KlK^ona,rim*onq^.7he,decw(^l.su^i^ injuries anddted on thes(xA (3) " AccoTdu^^to,aH)dl|uij|Btt'»:dBcg«s^ .-'"') and was workiro as Msson-and was eaming Rs^iSOQfr'tdBwnwUiis^,, .•'.^"-•^: »»"3M!^?-3E,;,S!;;^U:a:«i^t^^^^ They claiined Rs^^O^!Wdh»sai^;cw»v«isaB^ (4) tn tte abwnce <rf any docuinBntary eyid^^ ''"1 \of the deceased the TrB)una|l,,cnJ^,!|«|^;of;tt»'aigs^;itoeai*|M^^ mentioned in the post im»temreport as 54 yea tw^^h^ 1 ^) deceased was 54 yeare vfsQe and has atso accqrted theicl!fflmaqtes%a assertion tha* the deceased was eammg Rs^^OW- pw<nprth.w^te ^ : s.'.^': dedudn^ 1/3"1 amourt wWch ttiedeceased_wssj^>»|BifflE||m|Mg^|^|g ""I the dependency has^toB%,,;< sessed,atl%5.2^1(X]^ifcl;ss"Ri^^ has Uu»|>Ben iesessed a* the 2^00-X 't2i=;26,4G!|fr. s^, -;)-»i..c.?;r....,&:,.,;: ,:,,,^^,.,;^^ Leamed daums tribwal has ^)pBed nwriUp^ of U«aR<tates^thte;g|g awareted Rs^,90/WO/-,towar!js;,loss,of1.dgaerKtenc^^mcqnie.^^jMl^^ """i awarding addttional sum on toss of ^e8l6ite,^-6meif^»«!ap!WS^^ consortiuin, mental ^ony cte. TribunalisRs^.11^(00?-. (5) On penisal <rf ^ avi^ ft appeare^^t^ Tribunal has awanl«tji^t and proper compenMffon affier;acgg^ r^;ig,,,, '-.l-,fe.,,i:i's'ne:H^.»^s» ;:WSSS^ the monthly income aml the age c< ^ <tec«Bedi^;jpeF'^»^i^ "'"•"•t); made by the appellarts. (G) In the facte and <*rouiretances of^ cs^ lt<!aiwntt»ssMt^ the amoiBtt awardedbythe Ctertnrs TiaMmdis on a towerside.or.lteti •'^ i3»a the ctependemy Inrome has beat assereed or ttu* conect mult^Ber has not been the awanted amotmt. I. There is noscope fw ertiancement in l\;i!Nj C?) The Inslant appeal faite and te hw^ dfemiBp^ ;afc»1he^^ •~:^^_ •: • ••• -••••••••• .•••:- s •Sr-:":;- • ^ :". . •;"?K'::'.-f achras^onstsge. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge