@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWIS!ON BENQH CGRAM: HONIBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON’BLE SHR! RL JHANWAR, J. Misc Appeai N0.795i2004 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appellants None-for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. l ORDER V (6m July, 2009) Appellangs 1. Bhupendra Naik S/o Dewcharan La! (Claimants) Verma, Aged about 65 years 2. Narendra Kumar Verma, Slo V . ’ Dewcharan La! Verma, Aged about 54 years 3. Shailendra Kumar Verma ‘Slo Dewcharan Lal Verma, Aged about 48years All residents are village Devniketan, Ramkund Para, Chirutdih Ward, Infront of Maharastra Bhawan, Raipur CG Versus Respondents . Manoj Bhai Droia S/o Nathalala Non-appenants Bhai, Occupation — Truck Driver, R/o Vinage Madhapar, Manhal'pur Jamnagar Road, Rajkot (Guirat) 2. Dilip Mansur Bhai Dhangar, Address 5’ Gundabadi, Rajkct (Gujrat) Vehicle Tanker No.GTF 3554, Registered a 3. The United india Insurance Company Limited, Branch Rajkot, Through Madina Buiiding Kachahari Chowk, Riapur (CG) E3[I The following order of the Court was pas§ed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.‘ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on 1 MOP No.1402/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in tiling l the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel u - for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.1402/2004, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission 5) The appellants, are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 07.01 .2004 passed in Claim Case No.171/2002. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.18,42,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their younger brother deceased Mahendra Kumar Verma in the motor accident on 08.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,0001— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- only. l 3 @ 8) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence of ~AW/1 Sjhailendra Kumar Verma, (claimant No.3) in’para 11 of the award xi, Wield that none of the claimants was dependent on their younger hrother Mahendra Kumar Verma. The Tribunai, in this view of the atter, awarded Rs.50,000/— towards ‘No Fauit Liability‘ and s.2,000/— towards funeral expenses and thus a total sum of rh R u s.52,000l- was awarded to the laimants. R c 9) hri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellants could not S a dispute the fact tat none of the claimants as dependent on h w eceased Mahend Kumar Verma. d ra 0) ln this View of the atter the amountmawarded i rfectly in 1 m, s pe Co M line with the dictum of the Apex urt in the case of anjuri Bera (Smt) Vs Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd., and another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 643. 1 1) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the c he ompensation awarded by t Tribunal. 12) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby / v .\ . Q\ dismissed summarily. , _:f\ ‘ a mega? Sdl- , _ R.L_JhanWar ,f, Chief Justice§ ‘, Judge /: