\W This is blaimams’ appea! for enhancement of the oempensat‘ion awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Janjgin District Biiaspur (for shor‘; ‘th’e Tribune?) vide award dated G5.03.2QG2, passed in Ciaim Case No.1 ’MQQQ. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,00Gi-, ctatmed by the appetiants/ciaimants, unt‘ortunate parents of deceased KumAnnapurna Jaiswat by Wing a ciaim petition under Section 156 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on, 14.02.19§7, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of RsSiZlDGG/i as compensation. 3) The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it heid that ciaimants‘ daughter Kum Annapurna Jaiswai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 14.32.1997; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing ‘ registration Noi‘V'iP-26—B/1858 ; as the above offending vehicie Truck cn the date of the accident was insured with the United indie insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the insurance Sompany was iiabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 4,) As the respondents have not fiied any appeat against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai have now attained tinatity. S) The Tribunai considering that ciaimants‘ daughter Kum Annapurna Jaiswai was aged about 18 years and she wouid have been married within three years and as such: the ciaimants ’*oi i ’Ti’iiii §v wouici not have remained dependent on her for iong, a lump—sum of Rs.50,0DG/- which is eaye‘me under no fauit Heb’iiity was awarded io the c§aimants as compensation. 6) Shri HV Sharma, iearned counsel for the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunai‘ has erred in awarding iow compensation of ESSECOUIL oniy.’ 7) 3hr? Dasarath Gupta, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 United End‘ta insurance Company Limited on the other hand supparted the award and contended that as the ctatmants could not eetabtish any regutar independent income ot the deceased, the compensation of Rs.SG,OGitl- awarded by the Tribunal is justand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present CESE. 8} Snri Maiay Shrivastava, iearned counsei for respondents No1 and 2 aiso supported the award. 9) Ciaimants’ daughter Kum Annapurna Jaiswai was aged about ‘38 years, on the date of the accident. She was reguiar students of 1. 2‘” standard. it ha. come in the evidenee of her father AWM Siyaram Jaiswal that she’used to earn Rs.4G-§Gi— per day from stitching clothes and another Rs.40i3—SCO/— per month from tuitions. Her father Siyaram J'aiswai was an Electrician by occupation. it?) it is true, that ciaimantsf daughter Kum Annapurna Jaiswal would not have supported the ciaimants from her income for iongtime as she would have been married in due course. W 3'1) Bethai és it may, the fact remainsthat the cempensation of RSSQOGW— awarded by the Tribunai :‘n the context 03" the above mentioned bread features of the case, is certain!y on the iower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. ' 1'2) Considering aii the reievant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinfon that further award of Rs.2S,GOG/’- incrusive of interest component on the enhanced emount of compensation wouid make the compensation of Rs.56,00t3/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the CESE. 1'3) The appeai fiied by the aepeiiants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation: theiefore, is aiiowed in part. The ciaimants are awarded further sum of Rs.25,096l— inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition tothe sum of RsSQUOGI— awarded by the Tribunal. 1'4) Respondent No.3 the United indie insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.25,0GG/- before the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. i 5) No order as to costs. E i g: i 5d]- Chiei‘xstice i i Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge pad ma A. Wag, -