HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARi-i AT BILASPUR DNISION BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 796 of 2004 @eiiants 1. Bhupendra Naik S/o Dewcharan La! Claimants Verma, aged about 65 years, 2. ’Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Dewcharan Lai Verma, aged about 54 years. 3. Shailendra Kumar Verma, S/o ‘ Dewcharan La! Verma, aged about 48 years. AI! residence are vi!!age Devniketan, Ramkund Para, Chiruid§h Ward, in front of Maharastra Bhawan, Raipur C.G. Versus Mano} Bhai Adroja S/o Nathaiara Bhai, Ocbupation — Truck Driver, R/o Village ‘ Madhapar, Manharpur, Jmanagar Road, Rajkot (Gujrat) 2. Dilip Mansur Bhai Dhangar, Address 5 Mundabadi, Rajkot (Gujrat) Vehécie Tanker No.‘GTF 3354, Registered. The United india insurance Company Limited, Branch Rajkot, Through Madina Building Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Resnondents Non-aggricants Memo of Aggeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present : Shri S.,C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respendents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel on behalf of $hri Abhishelg Sinha, learned counsel for resnondent No.3. ORDER rail" Jury, 2099) l The foliowing order of the Court was passed by i Rajeev Gupta, C.J. : Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP. No. 14Q112004, a petition for condonation of the delay in fiiing the i apoeai 2. i On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants t havewsuoceeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal. 3. M.C.P. No. 1401/2004, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 16 days 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 Accidents Claims Tribunal. Raipur (for short “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 07.01 .2004, passed in Claim Case No. 173/2002. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.8,82,000/— claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of deceased ‘Kalpana Ben, wife of appellants’ younger brother Mahendra Kumar Verma in the motor accident on 08-06-2002, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000l— 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 S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- oniy. 8. § The Tribunal in para 11 of the award referring to the evidence of AW1 Shaiiendra Kumar Verma (ciaimant No.3) heid thatideceased Kaipana Ben had no income of her own and was dependent on her husband Mahendra Kumar Verma and as such the iciaimants cannot be held to be dependent on deceased Kaidana Ben. The Tribunal, therefore; awarded a sum of Rs.5Q,GOO/— towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 9. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that deceased Smt. Kalpana Ben had no income of her own and was dependent on her husband Mahendra Kumar Verma and the claimants were not at all dependent onx deceased Kalpana Ben. 10. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunai is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 643. 11. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore,_is liable to be dismissed and is hereby i K(/wY e v .\ dismissed summarily. w \.- i >7 Sdl— * we" i Sdl- i V, ¥ ,R.L.Jhanwar ‘ Chief Justice; Judah/L l l r’/{/ nimmi ’ L7