^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^< MISCELLANEOUS APPEAUNO.I j ^ ^ /2007 (SB) APPELLANTS ..S.A.-l-'3' B.R^-7;:^'^^ ?ie^i.s!.:^:?%-^' at®6...—•—•" 1, SMT.SUNDERMANI W /o Late Shri, Damodar Nishad, Aged About 46 Years. 2. SHAMVATI W/o Shri Sanitu (deserted) D/o Late Shri Damodar Nishad Both R/0 Near Mata Mandir Pathragundapara Jagdalpur Distt Bastar Chhattisgarh. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS ,NON-APPLICANT-3. ^ I^.ON-APPLICANT-1 ^" 1. The New India Insurance // Company Branch Jagdalpur Jhankar Takies Road Jagadalpur Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) 2< Nirmal Singh S/o ShriBachhan Singh Aged about 60 Yrs., Savarkar Nagar Hirapur colony,Aamanaka,P.S. Raipur Distt. Raipur . Chhattisgarh (Driver). 3. PreetamSingh S/o Late Shri <, Jogendra Singh Aged about 37 Yrs. R/o Civil Lines Raipur Distt. Raipur . Chhattisgarh (owner). APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 NON-APPLICANT -2 ' s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Ct N0. 1182 OF 2007 APPELLANTS : Smt. Sundemiani and anofher. Versus RESPONDBNTS (NON-APPLICANTS) The New India Insurance Company and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Sinde Bench: Hon^ble Shri N.K. AflMrwal. J. Present : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, coiinsel for fhe appellants. Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th day ofApril, 2011) Heard on I.A. No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing fhe appeal. 2. On due consideration, tlie grounds mentioned in the appUcation I am satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in explalning the cause of delay in filing fhe appeal. Therefore, the appUcation is allowed and the delay caused in fiUng the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the amount awarded by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short the Tribunal) tn the award dated . 11-05-2007, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2005. 5. Brief facts of the case are: on 10-08-2004 at 8.00 P.M., deceased Damodar while waiting for fhe bus to go to vUlage Balega to bring his wife, was dashed by bus bearing registration No. C.G. 04-ZA/0432, due to rash and negUgent driving of the driver of fhe bus, as a result of which he succumbed to fhe injuries sustained tn the said accident. 6. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribiinal under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tuiie of Rs. 7,60,000/- on account ofthe death of fhe deceased in the said accident. 7. As against Rs.7,60,000/- claimed by fhe clajmants, the leamed Tribunal on a close scrattny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.3,19,000/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants. 8. Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit: fhe amount awarded by fhe learned Tribunal is shockiagly on lower side which deseryes to be enhanced. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned. 8. Though fhe clamiants have pleaded, deceased was eaming Rs.4000/- per montti but claimants have failed to adduce cogent and clinching evidence therefor. Therefore, the leamed Tribunal has rightly assessed fhe r^t. s. i 1 •?^^^2% '%:.. 'i5'^',,^^ :s^--.'/-yi income of ftie deceased as Rs.3,000/- per monfh and Rs.36,000/- per annum, after deducting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, yearly loss of dependency has been worked out to Rs.24,000/-, lookrng to tiie age of fhe deceased as 50 years at the time of accident, miiltiplier of 13 has been applied and Rs.3,12,000/- has been assessed as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The leamed Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and fhus awarded a total sum ofRs.3,19,000/-. 9 . Considering every aspect of the matter, tn fhe considered opinion of fhis Court, the leamed Tribunal has not coromitied any error in awarding the above amount of conipensation, the amount' awarded is just and reasonable and does not call for arry hiterference. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed suminarily. —_—_ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Kvr