^l® M c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL(C).NO. ^ 01^/2009 (S.B.) ^Bl^BgfiC^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^l^ ^ ^ Smt.Chameli Shayam aged 21 years W/o. late shri Dilip Kumar. Master Lokendra Shyam aged about 3 years S/0. late shri Dilip Kumar. ^^?rs6<^ y Smt. Deshari Bai aged about 52 years W/o. ^^C'^^^. r ShriAjeetRam. ^$ ^"' ^-:-^ 4^^ Shri Ajeet Ram aged about 60 years S/o. Shri Dhaniram. -^ ^ Appellants No. 2 is minor through their legal guardianSmt. Chameli Shyam W/o. Late Shri Dilip Kumar All are R/o. Village Litiakhar P.O.Pali Distt. Korba(C.G.) RESPONDENT VERSUS i :- L Shivdayal Singh S/o. Nankiram R/o. Village.- Suttara Tah. Katghora Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Driver ofthe vehicle). 2.^S.M. Khan S/o. Safi Mphd. Khan R/o. Karbala road Bilaspiir Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). l^The Oriental Insurancejcompany Limited, through The Division manager Divisional office . T.P. Nagar Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.). MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEpCLE ACT. MISC. APPEAL VALUED AT RS.2MQOWHr j:"!fr^.vi:i'.;€IS i::ljMlS-il ll ^09 c> W^I ^l ft^Jch ^IT 31?t^? ^??Ni' 'T^r r^i<fi<n^, ^Ti1-H<i<o, f®i<ni-H^< )^- 'Wi^TWTW'" "" """"""""^200^) ^I^?T ^^T (1??!^^) ^<¥!W^fi^^n^, S.B. Hon'ble ShritJusrtceN.K, ^Rfef^ ^m^ ^ fe^l' iFsi^K ^^Rpl^it^ Asarwal 30.06Jt009 Shri PK Tulsyan, Advocat^ for the appellants. Heard on admission. Heard on I.A. No. 1, app^ication for condonsution ofdelay in filing the miscellaneous appeal. On due consideration, am satisfied that counsel for appellants is succeeded m explalning tfae delay caused ia fiiling this appeal. Accordingly I.A. No. caused in filing the appeal is her4by condoned. The instant appeal appellants/elaimants against the is accordingly ^low^ and delay has been directed by th?e award dated 25.09.2008 (Annexure A/l), passed by Additional I^otor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. Korba (for sh<j>rt 'Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 334/07, whereby the Tribunal lawarded a sum of Rs. 4,35,500A alongwith 8 percent yeajrly simple interest to the claimants/appellants herein. ^TO^k ^^N ^110^1 iM^I^IM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^ T \^ '^^'^^' 75ST ^l^l<rt<l, yTli'(-l<l<o, (^<rll-Mlj,< ^g^T'^r'^iNT ^K^T sf»^l^» »WWITSI»<IK^ •^200 l^T^i^^ .( ^f^^T) I^iW^fi^? ^Tit^T ^N^ft;i "W?^?^ fe^ ^fe^R '^^tf^IW^T The award is being a^sml4d by the appellants mainly on the ground Ifaat although Ihe clai4ants/appellants have pleaded the income of deceased as Rs. 10,OQ wrongly assessed theincome of<^ i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month. )/-per month, but the Tribunal has laimants as Rs. 36,000/- per annum Shri Tulsyan submits tl^at tiie claimants has filed the registration certificate of the Tr^ck and as tiie deceased Dilip was supervising traasport business being mii by his father said therefore, the income ofRs. 10,000/- mustl^e presumed. Having heard the counsel ^ppeariog for ^ie appellaitfs, haviag perused fhe records, I am of the] considered opinion that regarding income ofRs. 10,000/- as pleade^ by the claimants, Ifoere is no proof fiimished before the Tribunal nd\T any income certificate has been |has rightly assessed the income of filed and therefore, the Tribunal | \ deceased. No other point has l^een raised by the couasel for the ^w^ ^^? ^uii^ <i^i^(i'c<—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. r ^i^T^r^rw ^^i^i^l^^w ^ ^Sahu NI* 'IT ^W®}» 755T r^l^l<n^, ^Tll-M^Ko, [®ldl-!-l^< ..IN/v.lV(£.).......^..0..?... 200 '^n^? ^^.(sici?3®i<^) 1iCTW€fF7^t^T appellants. Therefore, the awar^ sufifer from any illegality or irreg adequate. In a motor accident claii^ case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded by accordingly dismissed summaril^ ^Plf^^ ^TR^ff'? fe^" <f^^$l< ^^tH^I^T passed by Ae Tribunal does not iilarity and the award amount too is what is important is tfaat the the Courts/TribunaI should bejust and proper compensation in the ^ctsand circumstanee ofeach case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. In these circumstaaces, t|he appeal deserves to be and is Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^ira^i ^^T ^ll^^i <l^i^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1 ,00,000.