(M. IN THE I'IIGE COURT OF CHHAT‘I‘IS ’ AT BILASPUR (CG) M‘A.No.}§>’/2002 PELLANTS : 1) Ramkunwar, W/o. Late ,2 Ramdhari, aged about ~yrs, 2) Chandramani, 13/0. Late2L ‘ Ramdhari, aged about 4—? yrs, Rama sh S/o. Late Ramdhari, ugLo aged about wkg years, 4) Umesh S/o. LHte Ramdhari, aged about . ye ars , ‘Appel—l-an-3—N . ‘ eras, £h£eugh+etxardiaan’{-Mef:hef} irea Appealia-ntwNe .al , All are residents of village - Ghatpendari, Police Station - Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG). VE RSUS Stand, Ambikapur, Through : Owner Bijendra Kuwar, aged about 44 years, R/o. Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). RESPO NON-Agemcm’rs IDENI‘S K § : 1) 'M/s Durga Motor Service, Bus ¢ A x" ‘ ‘ ‘ (OWNER) Kailash, S/o. Beegam Paneri, ' ageé about 44 years, Driver, R/o. Bartikala, Police station- Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (CG) M” (DRIVER) ...O2 w . ‘ X1~HC—-78 L, r «mermv wwg ‘ V; been preferresi by the appellantslgmaimants for enhancernent of the quantum of award passed by the leafned Claims Tribunal. in this case, the rash and ne igence on the part of the respondenta’ is not in dispute. ‘Learned counsel for the parties submit that an award of Rs.1 .64,000/- was passed in favour bf the appellants, However, during the pendency of the present appeal a c mpromise has been arrived at'by the parties and an additional amount o Rs.60,000/— has been agreed to be paid to the appellants/claimants. A étocument to this effect has also been tiled It is also agreed by both the patties that the amount due shall be paid W ', mLMmf, wmw WWTG': WW M /} Ala 3352m?/ wwgm W £16 33—5??? W; ( a} } E‘ww @fw 8W1 “‘W'YT’EWWI i L A, J. l Shri Ashck Kumar Shukla, coLnsel for thé appellants. W9H m 1? favfr a‘fagT é? ww: Wgw l ‘ Division Bench ' HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN Ag C i &HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR N f o7-o2-2oos. Shri Anand Kumar, Gupta, coLhseI far resgcndent No.31 Insurance ‘ “C5mpany. Heard on IA No 331 of 200 which is an appHcaIion under Order 32 Rule 12 Qf the Code of CM! Pres dure. Learned counsel for the app Iants submits mat appenants 2 3 and 4 were minor at the time of filing oft e cralm petmon However, they have attained majority by affiux of time. H prays; for correction of the cause=title of the memo of appeai. LA. No.331 of 2005 is allowen!i Learned counsei for the appellants is permitted tocorrect the cause-tulj of the memo of appeal. Heard. .V This appeal under Section 1%3 of the Moior Vehicle Act, 1988 has XI-HC 78 6dWWW WWM&N"352W:§ gm? 331%??? mam? (Ww} r. Mg am'w g ma? mavga aw We 1W1 z‘iftmé? x m n — 2 4' $ mm 3mm é within a period of twu mamhs fro! taday and in View 0f the afaresaid compromise, ihe appeliants do not ant to prosecute the appeal. We have gane through the iecords. The enhanced figure worked out on compromiee appears to bej st and proper. in this View of the matter, ii i .direcied that the appellants/claimants shali get total sum of Rs.2,24,060/ as compensation and, therefore, ihe Vanvard passed by the learned Clai s Tribunal is modified to the extent , indicated above in other words the appellant would get a sum of Rs 60 DOOI- over and above wha has been already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal it Is madelclear that If the amount due le not paid to the appellants as per the compr mise arrived at by the parties Within a period of two months from today, th appellants shall be entitled to charge interest @ 9% per annum from he said date till its realization. The direction in relation to apportionmegt, if any, given in the award shalt also apply to the enhanced amount. g The appeal stands dispose of in terms of compromise arrived at by the parties We however very much appreciate the efforts made by learned counsel for the parties Counsel's fee as per rules. i i i Let Certified copy be given ’pfter correction of the cause-title only T ’ " Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha it Judge as per rulesL\\ Sdl- Acting Chief Justice , i n i