IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No.^^1 2006 ^PPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^ 2. RESPONDENTS PISURANCE VERSUS 1. OWNER 2. DRIVER ^" 3 ^" •^^' Ishwar Ram S/o Bahalram aged about 48 years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation Agriculturist. Parwati W/o Ishwar Ram aged about - 45 years Caste Rajwar Occupation Hdusework Both are R/o Village Songara,: Sarastal Para Tah. Pratappur P/ s Pratappur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Ambikapur P/s and Tah. Aambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Mahendra Singh Chhabra, Vehicle Owner - Messers Chhabara Bus Services, Ring Road Namanakala, Ambikapur, P/s and Tah. Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Vanshraj S/o GaJibar aged about 33 years Caste Kunbi, Occupation driver R/o Village Prem Nagar Balangi P/s Chandni Hall Mukam, Chhabra Bus Survices Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACTL1988 AMOUNT CLALM BEFORE TRIBUNAL 4.71,500/- AMOUNT AWARD BY TRIBUNAL - NIL COURT FEE : Rs. I'S/- '~i'^33'S® \-'. Vs Ishwar ftam & another The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &others AAr. Rahul AAishra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.3. ;th 1. None appeared for the respondent No.l. Even in -t+ie second cail none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.l, therefore, we have no other option but to proceed ex-parte against 1+ie respondent No.l. 2. Respondent No.S-Driver has not been seryed. Since owner of the offending yehicle is already represented, we feel that service on the respondent No.3 is not necessary and therefore the service of notice on the respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 4. This csppeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased against the award dated 25.01.2006 passed by the ieamed 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.26/2004 (Ishwar Kam & ano1+ier Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors) fcy which only the widow cnd minor chiid of the deceased have been awarded compensation and nothing has been awarded to the Oppeilants herein. .*^ 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein have filed a claim application.under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4,71,000/- for the death of their son Hiralal Rajwade, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 23.1.2004, when Bus bearing ^y 2 registration number C615/ZA/0153, which was being driven in a rash and negiigent manner by its driver, dashed the deceased. TTie appellants haye claimed compensatlon on the ground that they were dependent on the income of the deceased and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 6. The Claims Tribunal yide impugned award refused to grant any compensation to the appeliants herein on the ground that they were not dependent on the deceased. 7. We haye heard learned counsel for the parties and perused tiie impugned -award as also the record of the Claims Tribunal. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of case and after- perusing records of the Claims Tribunal, it has been found that there is no evidence on record to show that the appetlants were dependent An the deceased as the deceased was tiving separately with his family i.e. .widow and minor son. AAoreover, it has come on record that appellant No.l was working as Mason and thereby ear'ning income. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appeltants would only be entjtled to get the amount under- 'Loss of Estate' 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, award a sum of fts.IO,000/- towards loss of estate to the appellants herein. They shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application tilt actual payment is made by the respondent No.l-Insurance Company. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M-Qyddusi Judge Roshan/- Sd/- G.Minl>ai»ddin Judge Bi!