>" HIGHeOURTQFGHHArTISGARHATBILftSPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. MiscellaneousADDeal(C)No.1106of2008 ApBellant (Non-applicant No.3l ResBondewts (ADOlicantNo.1 (ApBlicantNd.2 (Non-aDDlicantNo.11 (Non-applicahtNo.2) United India Ihsurance- Company Limited, Branch Qffice Korba, Throygh Its Divisional IVIanager, Diyisional Office, Main Road, Kbrba, Distt Korba (CG) Versus 1. Chhatrarn Dhobi, S/6 Myritram.aged about 37years, 2. Sawan Bai, W/oChatram, aged 35years, Both are R/o yillage-Dhanuharpara Rampur, P.S. & Tah-Katghora, Distt. Korba .(CG).:....:;.•.': .' .'..1 .' '.' 3. Ramsharan, S/o KhQlbahra, R/o Gajra Side, Banki, Mongra, P.S. Banki, Tah- Katgliora,©isft^KeFbai<©©)(Truckdrive^ 4. iSmt. Sukhjeet Kaur, W/p Tnlok Sjngh, R/o H.S. Complex, ^ T.P.Nagar, Korba, Distt. Kol-ba (CG) (Truck Owner). APPEAL UNDER SECTI(iN1730FTHE MOTOR VEHICLE&ACT, 1988 Present: S; . Shri Dashrath Gupta, Gounsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passedpn 19.08.2008) l-1eard on I.A.No.02 for taking certified copy of brder passed under Section 170 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 and money deposit reeeiptBn record. 2. I.A.No.02is allowed andthe documents are taken on record. *r •'; •^il' "^. 3. Heardon admission. 4. This is an appeal by the insurer. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribuh^l, Katghora (hencefortH 'the Tribunal') in a claim case Na .•-^ ~..-.<^..... )!lffilSi?-'^^BK^S*ftSff'W5;BKi^?MSEIiS^ -'2--~ i:|;i^' ti( i?'il! AVS»*" 298/2007 awarded compensatipn of RS.2,47,000/- jn case of an accidental death ofKu.l-lassan,aged14years. y 5. Permission was granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellaht/irisurer to contest the claim case on a]l available grounds. ; 6. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has placed relianGe on Manju Devl and anoffier vs. Musaffr Pasiyan and anoffier, 2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.) and argued that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- only and npt beyond that. Noother pointwas urged. 7. Having considered the submission of learned Cpunsel for the appellant, 1-have perused the impugned award and in particular paragraph 25. I am of the considered opinion that the compensation aWarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and does not Call any interferencejnthisappeal.Sofaras^hecaseOf.lVIanjuDeviandanother vs. Musafir Paswan and another (supra) is conCerned, it hasto b& bprne in mindthatinthattCasetheaccidenthadocGyrredOn2"July1998ahdthe Supreme Court has awarded compensation ofRs.2,25,000/-. In the present case, the accidentOccurredon 28.11.2006. Considering the steeplall inlhe valueof money, 1 am of the considered opinion that the cohipensation awarded bythe Tribunal cannot be faulted with; 8: This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.01 for grant of stayis also dismissed. | DaipRa"^ebDeshInu Jtidge 'v X ^ •s^.