IN THEHIGH COURT OFJUDLCATUKE ATBILASPURICC) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.’ $t‘é¥2OO CLAIMANT APPELLANT "m Harishankar Age4 about 5/0 58 yam, 5r: Daya Ram Saba, (K62) Ghansbyam S/o SH Harishankar Sahu, Aged about 17 yca is, Applica nf No‘2 fhkough éfber Harisbankar, S/o Harishankar Sahu,Bofb are rssidcncc oF—Sanfay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipm, Disff— RaipuKCGJ ‘ ‘ ' VERsus (1) Abciul Rasbid 5/0 Abdul Rabim "/ Musalman, Through: Bhatia Pefro! Pump, Dewmri, Thana~ Tikrapara, Raipur, Disfb Raipur(C.G.) Pefroi, Tankar No. M.P.23D~954O (2 / Sarday Hardip Singh S/o Sri Sardar / Baidev Singh, R/o Bhafia Pefrof Pkump, Dcwpuri, Raipur, Tahsr‘l & Distf— Raipu KCG.) (3) The Oriana! Insurancc Compa ny (x/ , f/Aganageh imifed.,Tbrougb; The Orienfal Divisional Insurance § Company LfcL Jail Road~ Raipur, PEfroi :[anigr N9 M.P.23D~9S4O [LEsPONDENT /NON~APPLICANT w, / Miscellaneous Appgal under/sgctjon 173 Motor Vehicle Act 198g g; HIGH COURT OF, CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR Sin Ié Bench: Hon’b‘e Shti Justice Pmshant Kumar Mishra NLA. No. 158 0‘ 2M4 Harishankar and another. versus W } APPELLANTS RE§poNDENTs MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTO 1 Ei§ A T 1% Shri S.C. Verma, ownse! fut the appellants / ' Shri ShaiXendra Sharma counsel for respondent m 3 oanER ‘ 1 (23.asgo1o) 51“ Abdui Rashid and others. x} Heard. (2) True ts a clamants appea‘ seekmg enh neement of the award oi compensation of Rs 3220001- The appea! ts barred by 149 days. 1 MOP. No 1300i2004 has been fried seekrng condonatron of deiay on the ground that the appeltant was not aware about the pened of trmttatron and havmg faced drfficutt crrcumstances In his Irfe they coutd not contact hrs counsel however when his counsel mformed about the period of limitation, he immediately preferred ttus appeal. (3) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has oblected to the prayer for condonation of delay, \w t4} On due consideration. M.C.P. No. 1&00I2004 is allowed. The a delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. E (6) The deceased was aged about 20 years. AocoMing to the ciaimants he was working as Wewer in a private shop and was eaming Rs. 3,000I- per month. The Tn'buna! has recorded a finding that he was eamrng Rs.2,5OOI- per month. Aher deducting 1l3" amount of his own expenses, whieh the deceased might have spent himeerf, the annual dependency has been cabulated at Rs.20,000l—. And after applying mumprier 16 the Ices of dependency income has been assessed at Rs.3,20,000!—. In addition, Rs. 2,0001- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. (7) Having considered the impugned award and the hnding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to age and income of the claimants as wet! as the deceased it appears that the amount oi compensation awarded by the ciaims Tribune! is just, fair and reasonable. There is no soope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. (8) This appeal is devoid of any substanoe and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra i} Judge l l ,.l sa a