COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH : DXVISION : HON'BLE H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. APPBIANTS MISC. (O N0. 305 of 2007 1. Smt Chaitibai, W/o Late Tek Ram Verma, Aqed about 46 yeors 2. Komo! Kumar S/o Late Tek Ram Vernna, Aged about 23 years 3. DhGrmendra Kumar S/o Late Tek R-am Verma, Aged about 20 years A!! residents of Vii!age - Thelki/ Tehsii " Babda bazaar, Dist ; Raipur - (C6) Versus RESPONDENTS 1, TiJQuram, S/o Krip Lal Sanu, Viliage & PO - Rohra, Poiice Station & Tohsil Bhatapara, Distt.Rdpur " CG.Through - Doulat Ram S/o Bhikhamol Panjwoni Bhalbhadra Ward BhatGparG, 2. DoulQt R.am Panjwanl S/o Bhikhamo! Panjwoni Bholbhodra Ward Bhatapara (Registered o^ner of offendin9 Vehicie) 3. Divisionai Mana9er, The Oriento! Insurance Company In front of Hiqh Court, Biiaspur (C©) : Shri AS Rajput, counsel for the. appeilants. None for the respondents. (Passed on 13th March, 2007) The foiJowing oral order of the Court was by ^ 1 k Vyay Kymar Shrivastava, J* I. ^-a?i^'»»..*»^.W >^ ,^^<^<^*—"« This is an appeal fiied under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act 1988 (henceforth "the Act") for enhancement of compensotion agcin-^t the award dated 28,11.2^36, by the First AdditionQl Motor Accident C!drn Tribund, Baloda Bazar, Dist-Raipur (henceforth "the Tribunal") in ciaim case No.17/2006, whereby compensation of Rs.ZpQflQO/- has been aworded in favour of the appeilants, 2) On 0410.2005 at about 9 am Jn th@ mornin9 Tek Ram (since comin9 by riding cyc!©to^ards his yiJSage. On ^ay, respondent No.l driving the vehicie beoring C.G.No. 10- A-7345 (for short, "the vehicie") in o rash and negiigent manner dashed the deceased. Deceased sustGined jnjuries and, succumbed to those^ Appeliants who are ^ife and sons of the deceased fifed an appiication under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensotion agdnst the respondents, who are driver, owner and insurer of the vehicie. Respondents contested the ciaim, 3) The Tribunai on enquir^ atio^ed the appiication and a^orded compensation as bebw: 1) Lo^s of dcpendency 2) Consortium and funero! Totai Rs. 1,98,OOOA Rs. 10.000/- Rs. 2,08,000/- 4) Hecsrd learned counset for the appeilants. Learned for the appeliants contended that Learned TribunaJ did not appreciate the evldence cor^ectly In hoiding income of the deceased Gnd amount ^ is on th^. bi^er side towards other heads. -A^ ,-r \- 1 " 5) We have gone through the a^ard, No Ie9al evidence to establish the income of the deceased has been adduced. Ho^ever, the Tribunol aliowed monthly income as Rs.2,100A. Deceased was 55 yeors, therefore, after deducting Rs.6(X5/n towards his own expenses/ recorded annual ioss of dependency RslS^OA and appiying multipiier of 11 bss of dependency. In accordance with ScheduSe, of the Act, R^.2000A towards funeral expenses, Rs.SOOOA towQrds consortium and Rs.2,5CD/» to^ards ioss of estate Qre admissible, however, the Tribunal allowed !ump Rsl0,000/°. 6} In view of the above, w©do not find any illegaiity committed by the Tribunal in recording findings of fact which cails for interference by this Court Therefore, the oppea! is iiable to be dismissed, and is accordingiy dlsmissed. Sd/- Chief JusUce Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge '\