•fc. B^ssli BEFORETHEHIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT APPELLANTS /APPLICANTS BH.ASPUR MA- 3'^^ 2005RB) >1. Ravi Shankar Panday aged about 45" years S/o late Shri Nivas Panday. ^yi. Smt Pramila aged about 42 years W/o Ravi Shankar Panday. ^93. Ritesh Kumar Panday aged about 18% years S/o Ravi Shankar Panday. J^L R/o Near Panchmukhi Hannuman Mandir, Model Town,Po. Nehrunagar Dist: Durg (CG). VERSUS .€ RJBSPONDENTS : /Ol. Rajendra Kunnauje aged about 23 ^TON-APPLICANTS years S/o Chhannu Lal Kaimauje, R/o Rengakatera, Ps. Lalbag, Distt: ^ Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver ofMatadorno. MP-24C/0321) ^02. Kailashchand Shanna S/o Virdichand Sharma, Kanko Transport, G.E. Road, Po. & Distt : Rajnandgaon. (Owner ofMatadorno. MP-24C/0321) }3. The National lasurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Akash Ganga, Po. Supela, Dist: Durg (CG) V t' ..•• o^y ^ '.-'<•/• .••" '^ ../'^ '^ APPEAL U/S 1'73 OF MOTOR VEfflCLESACT, 1988 fo,_o°o^ ^:t'i'? Ms. liiliClIII III 11 llllii 11% ii!;tiisl III "'•l^il 1^!11!1 HiGH COURT OFJuDICATURc CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR CORAM: (Division Bench) Hon'bte Shri S.R. NAYAK, CJ & Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J. MiSG. APPEAL N0.369 OF 2005 Ravi Shankar Pana'ay and others. Versus ^jsnors ije and otners. 'resent: '. B.R. Ghos'n Isarned counsei rorthe apDellants. c n (Passetf on 21st of November 2005) •Vavak. CJ: ' The foliow'ing Order of the Court was passecS by >». In a death case, the claimants who are parents of the have preferred Shis appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon. The Tribuna! teRlng the monthly Income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and having deducted 1/3 of the same tsnwrds personat expenses of the deeeased had oomputed ioss of dependency and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest at tho rate of a'»pwannum. 2. The oniy contention of the learned counsei for \ the appeilants-claimants ia that in computing the loss of dependency,| the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospect of the deceased earning more income if he were to afive. We pointedly asked ieajned counsei for the appeiiante v/hether flie claimants have ied any evidenee .-..i-..^.—^ crp -2.- before the Tribunal to show that if the deceased wers to alive he would have earned more monthiy income than Rs.3,000/- taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of computatlon of the toss of dependency and She iearned counsel would falrly teil us ffiat no such evidence •s !ed before the Trlbunal to prove the claim. In the abssnce of the material evidence, we cannot take any exception to the award passed by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, fhe Tribunal has deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of deducting 50% of th«income normaliy done in such cases. The rate of intsrest avrarded by the Tribunal Is also on hiyher slde. Looking froin any angls we do not find faiiure of justlce. The award passed by the Tribunal Is just and reasonabie whlch does no! "rarrant our inSerference. The is, therefore, dlsmissed, however. with no costs. Sd/- Chlef Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i^raiesra' •