IN THE HON?BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT _< BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL(C) N0. ll^b OF 2010 ^-.^as^^ ^^'- •' '" •• • APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1111^».1 0 £^f. 3 £f/ .^ ^./ ^ ^? / ^ ^ ^ ^' <T ^ ^ ^' .^" M 1. Negiram S/o Budhram, aged about 45 years, occupation-agriculture, caste- Kanwar. !7 jS. Vrindawati wife of Negirara , aged about- 45 years, occupation-house wifc, caste- Kanwar. Both resident of village- Bagudega, Tahsil- Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). ^ 4 VERSUS 1. Makbul Hasan S/o Akbar Ali; aged abou-t 45 years, Owner and Driver of the Vehicle, resident of village- Mohammadpur, P.S. Bhoganipur Hal Mukain 123/23 Gadriyan, Parwa, Kanpur (U.P.). 2. The Nevvr India In-surance Conipan}/ Limited, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ^ 3. Kamla Rathiya wife of late Ugrasen Rathiya, aged about 22 years, resident of village-Ba^udega, Tahsil and P.S« Lailunga <T Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Claim. before the Tribunal Awarded amount Value of appeal Court Fee Rs. 28,40,000/- ^ Rs. 4,22,000/ -.,^f J, 2 2.,o oa / ^ ^— ^ ^ ^^eiie^h} ^^^^vay^/^^^ ^ ^^^^ Rs. 15/-- r3-, 'iff «»tf/^ APPEAL 173 OF VEHSCLE.ACT, COURTJ3F CHHATTJSQARH AJ BiLASPUR Nisc. Appeal {0 No. 1195 of2010 APPELLAiMTS Negiram and another. VeT3U3 Ciaimants RESPONDEhSTS Vakbu! Hasan and others. IViisceSSaneous aposal under Secfjon 173 of the ^otor VehldesAct,1988 S.B: ^ion'ble MrJustice M.K.Aaawal Present : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsei for the appeilants, Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsej for respondsnt No.2. AWARD (13.09.2911) Wlth the consent of the partles, the matter is heard fjnaliy. 1. Thjs js an appeaj preferred by unfortunate parents of deceased Ugrasen @ Uge chalJenging dlstribution of amount of compensatlon between them and respondent No. 3 - Kamla Rathia i.e. wjfe of deceased Ugrasen @ Uge, awarded and dlstributed by 3rd Additionai IViotor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, (FTC), Ralgarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vjde avvard dated 08.09.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 29/2009. 2. As agalnst the compensatlon of Rs.28,40,000/- ciaimed by unfortunate parents of deceased Ugrasen @ Uge by fiilng a ciaim petitlon under Section 166 of the IVIotor Vehlcies Act, for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 20.2.2008, the ieamed Tribuna! avvarded a tota! sum of Rs.4,22,000/- as compensatlon along Vv'ith jnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition tJH the date of actuai payment apportioning It betvv'een appeiiants and respondent No. 3 ss Rs.1,22,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-, respectiveiy. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the evldence ied before it, he!d; the accident had occurred due to rash and negilgent driving by the driver of offending vehicie truck bearing registratlon No.U.P. 78/AT 8169 j.e. respondent No.1; respondent No. 2/lnsurance Company Jiabje for payment of compensation as It couid not estabjish ^T^'^, /^^ '\ r&.rfss®^ i1 2 the vjolatjon of poiicy conditlons; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation to the clalmants. 4. Shri Manoj Kumar SInha, jearned counsel appearing foi- the appeliants, by piaclng his reiiance upon paragraph 7 of the statement of Negiram (PW-1) submltted that as respondent No. 3 was not jiving with them after desth of their son Ugrasen @ Uge, jearned Tribuna! has faiien in error In apportioning the amount In the ratio of Rs.1,22,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- between the appeilsnts and respondent No.3 and amount of compensation be apportioned in the ratio of 50 : 50 between appelSants and respondent No.3. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsej for respondent No.2 submltted the appeljants Vv'ere not dependant upon the deceased, respondent No. 3 j.e. wife of deceased was on!y dependant of deceased suppressing above fact appeilants have preferred claim petitlon Jmpleading respondent No. 3 subsequently as respondent No. 3 in the cialm petltion and the amount awarded to them is rather on hlgher slde and dlstributjon of compensation between appeliants and respondent No. 3 need not be interfered. 6. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal Inciudjng impugned avvard. 7. Indisputabiy, appeiiant Neglram Is an Agricuiturist having 2.5 acres of land was not dependant upon the deceased. As per hls statement appelisnt No. 2 was bejng majntalned by him. Considering overajl circumstances of the case, In the considered oplnlon of this Court, the Tribunal has not commltted any jllegailty in distribution of the amount of compensation betvveen appejiants and respondent No. 3 rather the Tribunal was quite ilbera! in avt/arding Rs.1 ,22,000/- In favour of appeiiants i.e. parents of deceased. 8. in view of above, i do not flnd any substance Jn the appea!. 9. No other points have been raised. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appea! being w'ithout substance is Jiabie to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge /