i wwwm mwffwm éawm 1342 of 2005 MANO APPELLANTS Non-appellant No.2 & 3 ‘z RE5PONDENT$ Claimam's ‘ . Vs Non-applicawr NaVl Responden+ No.4 & 5 1. The Superin‘l-enden‘l' Police, Disfr'icf Dhamrari (ca) 2. Sfa're of Chhafi'isgorh/ Through: +he Coiledor, Dh amcri'ar-i (C.6.) 1. Abdul Rojjak, 5/0 Shri Abdul Shakur, aged obou‘i' 62 yrs. 2. Mehrunbai, W/oVShr'i Noor' Mohammad; aged aboui- 40\/rs. Bofh R/o Sihavo; Police S'i'a‘i'ion: Sihava, Tahsil Nagri, Disi'ric’i Dh amfuri (C6) 3. Narayan Prasod Shorma, 5/0 Shri Muhru Vermo, Rfo GangreL 4. Noor Mohammad, 5/0 Abdui Rajjok, R/o Sihaw, Police Sidion: Sihava, Tahsil Nagri, ‘Disfr‘ic'f Dhnmrari (C6) 5. The Orien'iol Inouronce Company Limi+ed, Divisional Office, Kachahar'i Chowk, R‘aipur (C.G.), +hrough +he Branch Manager, Orien-i'al Insurance Co., Behind Amar Talkies, Dham'i'ari (C.G.) of Irrigaroin Colony, Disi'rici' Dhomfari (C.G.) Manager, Divisional Pre€en+: Mr. Ashish Shukla, Governmenf Ac voca‘re for ihe appellan’rs. / HIGH COURT OF CHHgTTISGARH AT BILAsPUR XI—HC—78 EW,WK§,W WW ..................... a1 200 WWWW) WWW WWW mml¥ww ém%mn%m ‘ mmmm ORAL JUDGMENT ‘ _ (Passed oqn 23/04/2007) \ This appeal under Secfion [73 of The Mo‘l‘or Vehicles Acf, 1988 (for ibrevify ‘l'he Acf') is directed agains-t "the award dated 30.72005 passed by fhe Upper Mofor Acciden‘r Claims Tribunal, Dham‘rari in Claim Case N5.332f04 whereby the fribunai has awarded a sum cf Rs.82,500/—, being 50% of Tomi award of sum of Rs.1,65,000/- assessedffo The dependen‘r of deceased Mohammad Farockh, who died in a mo‘ion vehicie accidem‘ da'ied 7.10.2001. i . From perusal of fhe record i'i' appears fha'r non-opplicom‘ Noroyon Prosod 5harma was driving Tofu 7 bearing regisfra‘rion number C6- 03-2304, whereas, deceased M hammad Farookh was driving Jeep bearing regisfrafion number MP2 -B-9148. The avermem‘s made in fhe claim pefifion was fha't Narayan P asad Verma driving The vehicle rashly and negligen‘ily dashed wifh fheJ‘ ep driven by Mohammed Farookh, as a resLilf of which he died. ‘In The claim peTiTion The laimanTs have arrayed The driver of 7 . TaTa 407namely Narayan Prasad erma as non-applicanT No.1, owner of jeep namely Noor Mohammad a non-applicanT No.4, The insurance company which had insured The j ep as non-applicant No.5 aparT from, appellanTs herein as non-applicanT No.2 8i 3. 0 XI—HC—78 HW,W,W Wm ooo Wamm wmm § mmwm WW(W) WWEWW éqwm u The fribunal has assessec con$idering The no‘rional income unnbrn, affer‘ deducfing 1/3“ drn unf 'rowar'ds expenses To be incurred by the deceased on himself and a plying fhe muh‘ipiier of 16. However, faking info considera'rion fhe con r‘ibu‘ror‘y negligence of The deceased himself, “(he non-upplicanf No.2 & 3 have been saddled wifh The liabiliTy of paymenT of compensuTion To Th “Tune of Rs.82,500/- wiTh inTer'esT @ 6% poi i This appeol‘has been pr ferred mainly on The grounds ThoT res‘pondenT No.1 & 2 did InoT com wiThin The coTegory of dependenTs, There is collusion beTween The pa Ties, idenTiTy of vehicle hos noT been established and appellanTs wer noT given proper opporTuniTy for adducing evidence. However, fro also from The evidence available ‘itavour of respondenf No,2 namely awdrd has been passed only in Mehrun Bai, who is admiTTedly The moTher of The deceased. FurTher on The basis of evidence available on ’ . be proved wiTh a finding ThaT boTl So far as The objecTion T made a porTy is concerned, he ha The claim peTiTion and There is no‘ ground is naT available To The appe perusal of’The impugned award as on record iT is observed ThaT The EH; 200 The compensaTion aT Rs.1,65,000/- of The deceased aT Rs.15,000f— per record The accidenT has been held To i The drivers were negligenT. 1aT The faTher of deceased was noT s been arrayed as respondenT No.4 in appeal aT his insTance, Therefore, This :llanTs. awa?r-d passed by +hé iribimai, fhe appeal being devoid of any subsfance is liable +0 be‘ dismissed and accordingly, if is hereby dismissed.///" 77/ ‘xr P.T.O. XI-HC—78 2% WW, WE, WEI 1x4 A . 13¢? WT 15H; 200$ WWW WW<W) J WW%WW ‘ mmm 3 swwu§am$r $WW u In The result fher-e is no illegali‘ry or' infirmify in fhe impugned