““_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Berich: I Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A. No. 313 of 2005 United India insurance Co. Ltd. Branch: Power House, Bhiiai, Distribt Durg Non-appiicant No.3 Versus Resgondents hilai Nagar, Tahsii & District Durg Non-applicant No.1 Minwoi Rock Fibers _ Ltd., Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) . Non-applicant No.2 Bhagwat Das, S/o Samai Das Satnami, aged about 54 years ‘ Smt Sumitra Bai, W/o Bhagwat Das, aged 54ryears ‘ Both. R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Near Surendra Kirana Stores, Jamul, Aypel lant Rajendra Singh, Slo Naib Singh; R/o, Qtr. No.10, Street No.27, Sector-7 B Tahsil & District Durg (CG) Applicants Miscellaneous agpeal un er Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 . - Present: ——L‘ Shri S.S. Agrawal, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4. Respondents No:1 & 2 absent. Service on these respondents has already been dispensed with vide order dated 22.08.2008. v ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.1 1 .2008) Heard finally. (2) The appellant is aggrieved by aWard dated 22.09.2004 passed by the 1s' Additional Motor Accidents’Tribunal (henceforth Tribunal), District Durg (CG) in claims. case No.48l2004, whereby in a death case, compensation of Rs.1 ,87,500/- was awarded. a-w~ve—A.-»v~.“, . . s Mpv,. (3) The sole ground urged by the learned cbunsel for the appenan; in this appeal is that the Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income of’ the deceased at Rs.3,500f- and ought to have taken the yearly notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- (4) l On the other hand, Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 argued in support of the impugned award. (5) Having heard the rival submission, l have perused the record. The finding recorded by the Tribunal relating to the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- is based on the un-rebutted testimony of Bhagwat Das (AW-1) and Bahal Dad (AW-2). Both these witnesses have deposed that the deceased was working as a Conductor on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and besides this, he was also paid daily alloWance of Rs.40/-. There is not even an iota of suggestion in their cross-examination in rebuttal. No evidence was led by the insurer in rebuttal. (6) ln thisrview of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly incomesof the deceased at Rs.3,500/-. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. l .7 “sap shmukh ‘LL’ " v Judge . ""‘#W/ i Dilip Raosaheb De \ ,“e r J‘\