2 Natidna! Insurance Company Limited through Div] Manager Aakashganga Comwex, Supela, Bhiiai, Bistt Durg (CG) MéseaAweai under Sectim W3 of the Mom“ Vehicies fact: 1988 Pmsent : Shri Anand Shukla, counsei for the appenants. None for respondent No.1. Shri Goutam Khetrapar, counsei for respondent No.2. ORDER $5” January, 2010) mg~h¢g-a~//~w N ,, ‘ HnGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BgLASPUR x DlmSaaN SENSE 1 SQRAM: HDNggiE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. 8; HQN’BLE sHR! SUigIL KUMAR SINHA, J. , ‘1 Mist. Mrpea! Nu. 5’M a? 2%2 L AQQeEEamg 1 Kumari Nima, D/o Mahendra Kumar, “N Claimants . Aged about 5 years 2 Kumari Triveni, D/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged abcut 7 years, Bo’ih Minar Through Guardian Grand father f Khemai _' 3 KhemaE, S/o Ghasiya Sahu, aged about 55 years ;‘ 4 Dharm Bai,’ W/o Khemai Sahu, Aged aboui 5O years g M R/o Gahirabhedi, Post Belargandi, Thana - Gendatola, Tah and Distt Rajnandgao'n {6(3) VERSUS f‘ q Respcndems Smt Chétra Dodke, W/o Chandrakant Non—daémants Dcdke, aged about 4O years, house 1:: No.45, Shakarwara Chowk, Nagpur, \ Tahsn and distt Maharashfra 1' IQ The mHewing arder of the Cam was passed by Réaggw iiimgcv‘éag @J This 5’s ofaimanis’ appeai fer enhancement 0f the compewaiim awarded by Firsi Additicnai Mow; Accidents C!a§ms Tibanai, Rajnandgaon (far Sher: ‘the TribunaJ’) vide award dated 29.81 .2002, passed in Claim Case No. 72/1 999. 2) As agams’c the compensation 0f Rs.?,18,060/— maimed by i’ne agpe§ianismlaimanta unforiunaw minar daughiws and parents 9f dgoea$ed gedu §a£ by fiimg a mam? petifion unde! SeciEon m6 cf the Maior Vemcies Aci, fer her death in ‘ihe moior accideni on 28.”:2.1998, iha Tribunai gwanzied a tom: sum af Rs.1,741800/— as ccmpen$a§30n aiang Mm iniere3‘i' @ §% pef annum 11mm the da$e {23‘ wing of ihe daim getition im ihe date or“ actuai payment. 3} Shn‘ Anand Shukiav ieameij coun3ei for the appel§anis vehemently argued that the Tribunai has e'rs’eef m awardmg §ow camgen$at§0n 0f Ra? ,?4,8Q0}’- oniy. 4) $hri Gautam KhetrapaL learned counsei for respandent No.2 — The Naiiona! Ensurance Company Limited, m the other hand, suppon‘ee the award and contended hm the compeneahon of Re.?,?4‘800;‘~ awardees by the Thelma! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumsiahcee of the present sase. 5) As the reepondente have not fited any appeal against the award; the {twinge recorded by the'Trtbunat that deceased Bede Bet died on eeceunt of the injunes sustained by her in the motor ecetdent on 2&.1.2.t998; the ascident occurred due to raeh and Jeep 25:; the cffanding vehicEe CGmmander Jeep on the date 9f the acaicéent wa$ maured wi’th the Naiionai inrsurance Company Lim‘fged, the insurance Campany was HabEe to may compensatéon ta Efrxe Li‘xalmani's, have now attained fmakity. Thai apari, ihese findings are net undev chalienge befare ug in this appeaL We, themfore, affirm the abaw findings recordeci by the Trlzbunal. 6) Thea claimants themsmves pmaded that deceased Eeéu Bai mad to 9am Rs} .200/- per menth aa Labour. The Tribunai, hae eccee’ied the claimants} ewidence abeut the inceme of the deseaeed and assesseé her mcome a'i Ref} 200% per mantra. The eiaimeme, as such came‘: have any kegitimate gi’ievance about the aeeeeemem 0f ’che ineeme ef ihe deceaeed by ihe Tebunai. T; *{he Tribuma! has rightiy aeeeseed the claEmants’ dependency ey eeeueiing me ueueé H3“ of the inceme e? the deeeaeed texrvaz'ds he? {sereomei expenses 3} As the Tribune! hes seiecfied the muitipRer of 18 which is the highest multipiier prescribed in the Secend Scheduie under Section 163% e? 'ihe Meter Vehiciee Aci, ihe claimants cannet have any grievance in ihai behaif, 9) Fe? the fai’egoing reasone, we do not find any scepe fer enhancemeni of ihe cempensaiien awarded by ihe Tribunai. 10) The eppeai fiied by the appeiiants/ciaimanis for 'enhancemeni or ihe compensation, iherefore, ie iiabie to be diemieeed and ie hereby diemieeed. ii) i‘io ercier are to coete. Leon“ Kumar Sinha ‘ Judge ’7' ’r/ ’7” V Sd/_