».«fc<^^SS.>S*M.<a ^ (^ IGH COURT OF AT |ins!e_Benai : Hon'ble Shri DiiiD Raosaheb Deshmukh.J. lyi.A.CCiNo.l 369 of 2007 NON-APPUCANT Bhaskar, S/o Nankurarn Bhaskar, aged about 40 years, R/o Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) CANTS Versys 1, Smt. Khalroonisha, W./o KaiaiTi, aged about 58 years, 2. Sayed Akeei Ahmad, S/'o Late Mohd> Kaiam, 30 years, Through:- General Power of - Attorney Holder Sayed Sakeel Ahmad, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Hazi Sayed Mohd. Kaiam 3. Sayed Sakeel Ahmad S/o Late Hazi Sayed Mohd. Kaiam, All Residents of Budhapara, , Ralpur, Tah. and Distt. Rajpur 4. Mahant, about 28 years, S/o Ramdas Mahant, R/o Mittumuda, Raigarh (C.G.) 5< New indla Insurance Company Ltd. Ralgarh (C.G.) (L.C. No.6/14296/98 • ^ejBorandym^9pReai,ynder^Sectionl73ofMotor^hi^^ Present : Shri Amlt Sharma, counsel for the appeilant. on SOIR November, 2C cn admission. tPlJIII 2. This Is an appeal flied by the o'wner against an award dated 27-08-2007 In Claim Case No.72/2005 passed by the Flrst Addjtionai iVlotorAccidents Clalms Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the MACT") whereby in a case of accidsntai death, cornpensation of Rs.2,15,000/- v^as awarded against the appellanfc'ovyner vvhiie exonerating the No.S/insurance Company. 3. In this appeai, the following are not by the counsel for the appeSiant:- (a) , that the the ovv'ner of Qualis No. CG- 13/C-090 on the of accident. (b) that respondent No<4-Ganesh yahant, driver of the was authorized' by the appeliant to the vehjde for serviclng to Ralpur, (c) that of Syed Kamal who travelilny in .the above mentloned vehlcle occurred on 23-02-2005 at about9.30P.M. (d) the MACT has rightly the Cornpanyfrom Slabilltyto'pay compensation. 4. Shri Amit Sharma, learned for the a two foid 'submission: (a) That tne IVIACT in rnonthiy income of the at Rs.6000/-, (b) That the appeliant being the principal not responsjble for the unauthorized act of the non- appllcant No.4 in carrylng the as a In the vehicie at the of 5. Having considered the rivai submlsslons, 1 the impugned award. The ciairnant the oral evidence of the .widow and son of the to show that the was an electrica! engineer. The evidence !ed by the clalmants further show that the to for the said^work. Aithough evidence, was ied by the to show thaf the was earnlng a sum of Rs,45,000/- per month the MACT ^^^^^. /^•^: "^. ^ ^. 't s 1 s^ ^f 's<%,^^ has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month which In my considered opinion cannot be faulted with. 7. So far as the other contention by the iearned counsei for the is concemecrrTTr'vJow of'the fact that the No.4 was authorized to the vehicle for serving to Raipur and on way up a gratultous would not the from tne ijabillty to pay compensation, 8. in this view of the matter, there Is no in this Accordlngly, the is at the of admission. 9. Consequently, I.A. No.01 which is an appiication for of stay stands djsmissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kvr