^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 556 of 2007 Appellants Claimants Respondents 1. Smt. Dhaneshi Bai, widow of Late Budhwar Singh Khairwar, aged about 25 years, 2 Ku. Vineeta Khairwar, daughter of Late Budhwar Singh Khairwar, aged about 6 years (Minor) through natural guardian -mother - Smt. Dhaneshi Bai, widow of Late Budhawar Singh. Both are the resident of Shivnagar (Rumgara) PS Baico, Tahsil and District Korba (CG) VERSUS 1 Bhanu Pratap Singh son of Hanuman Prasad Rathore, aged about 36 years, resident of village Mudhali, PO Hardi Bazar, .Police Chowki, Kusmunda, District Korba (CG) (OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE) 2 Hem Bai, wife of Mohar Sai caste Khairwar, resident of Karibhanwar, Tahsil Sakti, PO Ambganwa, PS Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Misceflaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER rth (27tnApril,2011) The follov^ing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. ^ IW^NMINNNB^ This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vjde award dated 26.2.2007, passed in Claim Case No.33/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.28,32,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughter of deceased Budhwar Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.1.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual paymert. 3) Shri Abhijit Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- only. 4) Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bhanu Pratap Singh, the owner of the offending vehicle tractor, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,35.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Admittedly, deceased Budhwar Singh was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. The claim petition was flled under Section 166 of,,the Motor Vehicles Act alleging negligence on the part of the owner of the tractor in maintaining the tractor jn the road worthy condition. The Tribunal found that the claimants could not \ J- c'"^ 1 ^. '''^t^ '/A establish the above negligence on the part of the owner of the tractor. Thus, it is apparent that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased Budhwar Singh himself who was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. In this view of the matter, the ctaim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself was not maintainable. 6) Be that as it may, as the respondent No.1 the owner of the tractor has not filed any appeal against the award, we leave this issue here only. 7) From the recordswe gather that the matter was placed before Lok Adalat at the trial stageand a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- was acceptable to the claimants as full and final settlement of their claim, and the Tribunat has awarded Rs.1,35,000/- which is more than the above sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. 8) The compensation of Rs.1 ,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in our opinion, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. -—~~~—— ^ SdA CMef Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge