£IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ! {J / CHHATTISGARH) \ Sam-k @gmév MISC. APPEAL ‘YOO /2005 APPELLANT /Dhaniram Claimant Aged about 50 years, S/o Babulal Sahu, R/o Village Parsahi, Thana Dongargarh, Tahsil Kharagarh Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Pardashiram Aged about 30 years, S/o Tulsiram, R/o Village Badhiyatola, Tahsil and Thana Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon \ Sardar Randeep Singh, S/o Sardar Sinderpal Singh R/Q ' Kundupara, Dongargarh, Distt. - Rajnandgaon @rlver RESPONDEHTS / . and Owner y ‘ Wm“ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT t f HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘FISGARH AT EELA$PUR MA. No.500m‘ 2mm APPELLANT Dhaniram C§aimant Versus Pardeshiram & anather. APPEAL UIS 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT LSinqie gench: Hon‘ble Mr. MK. Aqarwal. J.) Pre‘sent : ShriPuneetRuparel,counseEforthe appeilant. None for the respondents. g ‘ ORAL ORDER RESPONDENTs (Passed on 25‘“ day of January, 201a) This is claimant‘s appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 06-11-2004 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunai') in Claim Case No.68f2003 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.8.000/— has been awarded for the death of bull owned by the claimant. 2. The appeliant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming Rs.’i,08,000/- as compensation for the loss of buii. 3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, rnateriai placed and submissions made, awarded ”a total sum of Rs.8,000/— along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application in favour of the appeilant. 4. Learned counsei for the appellant would submit that although the price of the said buli has been correctly decided by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/— but the iearned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the resultant loss to the appellant on account of death of bull and therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 5. l have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The case regarding loss of but! is essentially a case with regard to lossidamage to property. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal @ has awarded ¥uii price in which the appellant has purchased the said buiL 7. It is trite law that in awarding compensationjowards damage to property the actual loss would be the criteria for determining the compensation on this head. Future ioss/remote loss can not be considered. ln View of above‘ the learned tribunal has not committed any illegaiity in awarding Rs.8,000!- as compensation towards toss of butt. t 8. In the resuit, the appea! being devoid of merits is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ' i‘, N.K. Agrawal Kvr a Judge