HKEH CGER‘E’ G? GHH&T‘§!§@&F€E‘€ :M‘ giLi3gSPi§R @EW3EQN EEMQH H§N5gLE wéR! @JEEW @Eigwlik, QJ. 3a PKEN’BLE $HR§ 3L5¥é§i KijMAR SENEA9 J" MQSc” immaa§ Ne. 5W 9f 2W2 Chevendra Kumar, 8/0 Shiv Praaad, aged aboui ’i ygar miner thrcugh guardian fatha Shh: PmEad Shiv Prasad, Sio $5M Swab, Age abeui 3f. both, R/o Gahérabhadi Past Be§argonaé£ Tah and diSi? Rajmandgaen (CCQ §E%§wg Sm? Qhitm DQdke, W/e Chandrakant Dodke, aged abQut 4Q years, hauSe No.£5, Shakamam Chawk, Nagpw, TaE‘isH and diss§a Maharashtra Nmmmi inwranae Campany Limited ihmugh Div! Manager AAkashganga Samplex, aupeia, Bhigai, Dim Burg {CG} §a$5 amier $gaiéam "i'iS a? “me Mami' Vehiaiw glsi, ’§§%@ 3A§3 iagangQMW§ Qi§§§£gm§‘ Pr€seni : Shri Anand Shukéa, caunsel fer the appeéianm. Name far respcndem Nam. Shri Sourabh Shamaa, counsei for respendem No.2. ®R§ER {63m gamuwy, 26w; The faliawing arder a? the Court was pawsed by Raajeev @azgzmg C‘J. This i$ daiman‘ts’ appeal $0? enmnoement of the commengwon awamed by ii e First Additimal Mote? Accidenis Skiima Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (fer Ema“: ‘i'ne Tribunai‘) Vida awam‘ daze-3 23m .2002; pa3$ed in Claim Ca$e No. ’f’m §9§. 2) As against ihe compensation 0f R5191 ,GOOI— cia§med by :he appeilanis/daimzmis, unferiunate son and husband 0f deceased Jiiibaii by filing a claim gie‘iition wider Section i66 of the Moiar Vehicies ACE, far her death in ihe motor accident on 28.9.1998. the Tribimai awaicieci a feta! sum of RM ,7G,2€)O/— as compensaiion aiong wiih interest @ g% pier annum from the (fate cf fiiing 9f ihe ciaim iaei’i‘zioii tiii the date of acmai payment. 3} $hri Amnd Shukia; (earned ooungai for the appeiiams vehanemiy argued that the Tribunaii has; eried in awarding iew compemaiéan 3f Ra‘i ,?Q,2Ci0it cniyi 4}- Shi’i E3aurabh Sharmg, ieamed coun5ei far respondent No.2 ~ The Naticmai irisurance Company Limiied, on the ather Emmi, supparied tha aWard and coniencéed max ihe compensation of Rs.‘;,m,2GGf- awarded by the Tiibunai is gust and prcpey campensation in the facts and circumstancee cf the present caee. 5) As the respondenis have net flied any appeai againe'i Ene award; the findings recerded by the Tribunai that deceased Jitibei thee en eccount ef the iniunee euetatned by net in the meter accident on 28.12.?998; the accident cecuned due ti) rash and negiigent driving of the driver oi the Offending vehicle Cemmander Jeep; as the offending vehicle Cemmander Jeep on the date of the accident was ineuree‘ with the Natienei insurance Cemeany Limitee, the ineurenee Cemeeny was iiebie t0 pey contpeneetien to the eieimente, have new attained finaiityi That apart, theee findinge am net Lmder chaHenge before U$ m this appeai. We, therefsre, affirm me &bove findings recarded by the Tribunal. 6) The ciaimanta themseive5 pieaded Eha? deceasad Jitibai Liseci m eam Rs.1,2GO/— per mamh a3 Labaur. The Tribunal ma assepied the c§a§mami§ evidence about me imome of {$33 deceased ana‘ assessed her inceme at Re? ,200/~ per month. The Céaémanie, as euch eenm’: have any [egitimwie grievance about ihe eeeeesmeri cf %he income of the deceased by the Tr§bunei. ?’} The Tribune! hes rightiy assessed the ctaiments’ dependehCy by deducting the usuat 1/3” Gt the income e? the deceased tewards her pereonai expeheee. 8) Ceheicierihg that deceased Jitibai was aged abeut 25 years and her hue’eand Shiv Praead was shown to be 30 years of age, the muitipiiei‘ 0f ’17 eeEected by the Tribune! canhet be said ta be on the iewer eicie. Q?) Fer the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for ehhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. t6} The appeal faied by the appeliants/claimants for enhancemeht of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be ciiemiseee: and ie hereiey dismiseed. it) , i‘io order as to coets. \$ LN Sd/— i Sunil Kumar Sinha l Judges Sdl- Chief Justice subbu