THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR/C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal No. c] ]-^~ /2QQ3 APPELLANTS: CLAIMANTS ^, Ha^S^I si DSsSilit"! 1) Ramsaran Verma S/o. Nandkumar Verma aged about 28 yrs., R/o. Vill. & P.0.- Beldar Sivni, P.S. - Kharora Distt - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON- 1) r. Baliram Kawar S/o. Meeluram Kawar -APPLICANTS^ /^ /7 Through M/s. Vimal Construction, ( ^f'^e'^ Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) f'f^ , 2) ^, Maniklal Jain Through M/s. Vimal x^^y / V Construction, Choubey Colony, ^y.y.A ' Raipur (C-G-) riO'.<>•' .<^^ ^ .^' ^ '^>- 3) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. ' ^ Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jail Road Raipur (C.G.) \.^-" Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173_OF MotorVehicles Act 1988 ?-sz^?y <^T [^1=F ;;" antTi'ICTTS; -T ;3fflaaa: a -Kwswati ^T^%TT 'WS'MT^S '~v v 'E°\'Y;' S ''tf:'S '''^ S '^3 .;;T3d -«!A[[C'!AJ^ ®Ti!'y'|<s,M<TIF<:]T1< ..r'l.:..6:.^.o,-..°?.\3:l.?^3 vi'S^ w^ c^wv) ii^iW fT6? STTS^-^^ "qpq^f ^ fe%f Tf^i^R ^atmtisnt^ Division Bench: HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, Ab. C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIWARJSINHA, J. 31-01-2005. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel foi| the appellant. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, 4ounsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Heard. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/C4imant for enhancement of the quantum of award passed by the leamed Clafms Tribunal. In this case, the rash and n^gligence on the part of ttie respondents is not in dispute. Leamed counsel for the| parties submit that an award of Rs.1,00,362/- was passed in favoi|r ofthe appellant. However, during the pendency of the present appeal a bompromise has been arrived at by the parties and an additional amount 4f Rs.1,50,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the appellant/claimant. A jdocument to this effect has also been fiied. It is also agreed by both ths parties that the amount due shall be paid within a period of two months ifrom today and in view of the aforesaid compromise, the appellant does nof want to prosecute the appeal. We have gone through the irecords. Theenhanced figure worked out on compromise appears to be jt(st and proper. In this view of the matter, i( is dlrected ttiat the appellanVclatmant shall get total sum of Rs.2,50,362f- as compensation and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Cl^ms Tribunal is modrfied to the extent r XI-HC—78 '-^"i W !S" :^ .»n<p?rEsiits? r subbu !i<:»ft!i;H ?;SF ^lTiWrq, '®^TXTTG, T^CTT?TT{< ^\, A^MO' ^fT-|T-°°^ W<!Wf1Sl;l ' 'Wt 20' 'iVvJ! ~f^i C^ %"4) ^Fifwfil •TFRTf •? TC^' ^RRSR indicated above. In .other wordS, the appellant would get a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- over and above wjhat has been already awarded by the tearned Claims Tribunal. It is macje clearthat ifthe amountdue is notpaid to the appellant as per the compijomise arrived at by the parties within a period of two months from today, |the appellant shall be entitled to charge interest @ 9% per annum from th^said datetill its realizatlon. Thus, the appeal stends j disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at by the parties. We, however, very much ^ippreciate the efforts made by leamed counsel for the parties. Counsel's fee as per rules. Certified copy as per rules. \ ^._—.— -— - Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge >\~^ •rl