ni ,CJ. S ^•MA&ir^@AI-fA@ 1 s ^rE^is.i^ru^fz^ii'^.t^ /^ !-;..,•'•-.'• ^ECSiiisa^ EL Tulsi Ram aaed a 31 vears, 1 Of ^i^ .:;.CLC resicient VI ViStQ^^ Kodawa Gudan, Post Office Duilapur, !Ar>^k,As £l»'54'S^Wt -l^? •L-''J> !?' •/'ti^-"tii OiK'^A?'E^; vii^-ss oi.ci^.jy] i r\ur\uyi, iciii^u rsnusnes, and Dlstt Biiaspur (CG) At present resident of DevariKhurd PS Toriiva, Bilaspur, Tahsi! and District «!aspur(CG) •^i 1^11 lifil non-aDDlicants Vijay Bahadur son of Babuial (Driver of the vehicie)resident of viliage PS Khiri, Janpad, Allahabad (UP) 1 ;-J,,^,-1 L.iUVeil Rajendra Sinah, son of Narayan Singh, resldent of villsge Kasav»a, Chakghat, PS Subaai. Distt Rev/a (MP) Orienti insurance ComDany Llmited, Office at Narma! Schoo! Road, BiSaspur, through its Divisiona! Manager 4. Kanhai @ tonhaiva Lal son of late Terasram, resident of vlliage Koda-'iva Gudan. PO Dutlapur. PS KxMw, Tahsi! "^. ini^ *^ p"" "saltu<5Sii 9. n.st* R;l~cn..r !fn\ Ot US'Bli, LSUsaSU^II i.^^3 '^- tt-^.N^.i'^'ss" ^J^&^*"^!;^ Arf*^ i^E^S.Vl VSJIE^E?? Jaifc^l. IT' s Present : Shri MK Bhaduri and Shri PKTuisyan, counsel for t'ne appeliant. Shri Saurabh Sharma, counse! for respondent No.3. :w ''";.,. ^•S* 8 •: "isi^c- ^ ;,.^^.. g. 2 yfSf !i|l^lli»ite< (S"' septesTsoer, zsici The following ,order of the Court was passed bv GuDta, C.J. Appellant Tuisi Ram is seeking enhancemsnt of the comDensatiop. av'/arded bv ths 4 AddltlQnai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide av/ard datsd 23.02.2004, passed in Claim Case No.53/2003. 2) As agalnst the compensation of Rs.8,40,000/-, cSaimed by the appeilanVciaimant, unfortunate son of deceased Terasram by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 06.03.1995, the Tnbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/- as compensation aiong v/it'n interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) Shri MK Bhaduri and Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsei for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in iwarding low compensation of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/- onlv. 5) Shri SaurabhSharma, learned counse! for respondent No.3 t'ne Oriental Insurance Companv Limited, on the other hand suDDorted the award and contended that comDensation of Is.l.OO.OOO/- awarde^. by the Tribuna! is just and compensation in th.e facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) True, the ciaimant pleaded that his father deceased Terasram used to earn Rs.100/- per day as labour, the evidence led in that .behaif was not of ciinchina nature. We. therefore, do not •'nifnwmMtBainirtMUtinmnuiiii-uuiMiMMBNI ^ ^^.^^../^J^. iiii^:!!^^; .' y'"a-i)i,' find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased bv ths Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/- per month. 7} Ths Trlbunsi hss'bssn ouits tlbsrsi In dsductlnQ onlv 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expeni though the deduction in that behaif couiti hav6 been to the extent of 50% as there were only two persons in the family dependent on the income ofthe deceased i.e. deceased hlmselfand his son claimant Tulsiram. That apart, ciaimant Tulsiram bein.q aaes f^ f(: JbbU years, must be havlng his own independent income a!so. 8} For the fbregoina reasons, we do not find anv scope for inhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal, flied bv the appei!ant/c!atmant for enriancement of the compensation, therefore, is !iabie to be dismissed and ss lereby disml 1(0) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustie< Sd/- R.N. Chandi Judge