•"s; ^ HI^COURTOFJUDICATURECMHATTIS©ARH:BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM^: ; HON'BLgSHRIH.L. &ATTU, Cj& HON'BbE SHRI V. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. APPELLANTS -s^ ^ MISC. APPEAL (C^ N0. 350 OF 2007 1) ^Berna Xaxa; Wd /o Lote^^ Xaxa aged abput 45 years v •.••'• '•-••.' :-'":- - .' • ^•~: "• •: ' ". - 2) John Xaxd S/0 Uate Pascai Xaxa A9edabout25y€Grs ' ;?- • -" '; "-.' •'. ' ^, 3) Pramod Xaxa S/o tafe PGScaI Xaxa Aged ahout 20 yeors ''•'•:' ^^^^^^^^ A [ owa •t'oli], T^anQ TapkGra Tah. Kunkuri &ist1-.Jashpur[C.@.] ; « !11!.. RESPON&ENTS -^? ^ l..:-Versu^.:.:;.:.:;':'-..',;::-^ 1) Rqj^h Kumar BGirGgj S/o L.Rt.Bairagi, A9ed al^ut SOyear^, -Occu^ JE>riv<er^ ^&epartment^^^^^^^^^^^o^^^^ t>istrJGt ho^pital Jashpur^^^^^^b ^ Joshpur. nGgcr/ Permarient R/p &sstt. ^Tashpur [Driyer] <?f Vehjcie Involved ' in c^cident bearm^ No,^ 09 4^^^^^TC .32123';.,:'•''•-...^;-.'.''-1 ;/,^ 2) The Chief Meclicdli Officer District HospjtQl^^^shpur ,[€@][Redd of the Office^ m^^^ mchar^ of theVehcle;^ res^ for its movement] ^ . 3} S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ " Collectpr/ ^^^^^^^^^^^ W^ to VehicleQf-t-heStafe] , ^^.'- Present :^^^^^^^^^^^^ S^ NGn^fprth^regpondCTt^ ^ OR^L OR&^ (Passed on 23''° March, 2007) The foiiowing ora! order of ths Ccyjrt wss passed by Vy®yKwifir ShriViiiStova. J. This appeai by ciaimants under Sectson 173 of the AAotor Vehjcie Act 1988 (for short I2th€ Act") has becn dlrected for iBnhancemeiTf' of the compensation, sgajnst the award dated SO.il.2006 pa^sed by Addjtionai Motor Accident CSaim Tribu^aS, Jashpur- (hsncefori-h "the Tribunai") in Ciaim Case No.32/2(X)5 whercby a ^im of R3.1,17,(X)0/- has been aBw<srd€dto them. 2) Briefiy stated fficts are that on 16.02.2004 ^Pasca! Xaxa (^i'nce deceased) met with an motor accident and succumbed to the jnjuries. Ths accident was cau^ed by rsaspondent No.l drivtng vehicte No. MP-09/TZ- 3212 in a rash and negii'gent m<snne«^ The owner of the vehicte is State^ Legd representstives of the deceased who are appeiiants herein fjisd or, appiicstSon under Sectlon 156 of the Act for grant of CGmpen^otion agajnst the respondents. Re3p»»ident3No. 2 and 3 remained ex parte whereas re^pondent No.l conteated the c!dm. 3) The TrJbunaS after due apprecSation of the evidence, aSSowed compen^Gts'on as beiow: a) Soss of dependency b) ' funeral expenses c) \Los3 of consorf'ium Totai CuTiGunt Rs.1,10.000/- Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- R3.147,0(X)/- 4) HeGrd learned coun^e! for the (Sppei!£ua}ts. He contcnded that TrjbunsS did not record the Income of the decea^ed correctiy arid ailowed compensatjon on iower side. t^ 5) We have gone through the awGrd. There is no sub^tantive Seya! evidence to prove trh,€: income of the deceased. UndisputedSy dscea^ed was 55 years. Therefore, the Trjbuna! for as^essment of hss of dependency accepted annua! notionai Income as R5.150CX)/- after reducing 1/3 of his income towcrds his own expsnsc^ appSied iTiuitlpSier of li and recorded hssof dependency, abo awarded amount on other heads. Th? fjndlng of fact^ recorded by the Tribuna! does not suffer from any iSSegaiIty or jrreyuiarity so as to condemn it- We do not find any sub^tance in the appea!, th^r€^or^rL|^!iubteJ^_b£_disrnl3sed I 1 Sd/- | Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge ^"