HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Applicants) RESPONDENTS/: (Non-appljcahts) Miscellaneous Appeal No.612 of 2004 1. Kaushilya Bai, widow Late Bishahu @ Bhangu. ' 2. Santosh Kumar aged 21 years. 3. Shivcharan aged 18 years. 4. Dularj Bai, aged 16 years. 5. Dulia Bai, aged 12 years. 6. Siya Ram, aged 10 years. 7. Dilharan, aged 8 years. ' Appellant no.2 to 7 are childrens of Late Bishahu @ Bhangu and they are minor through Mother Kaushilya Bai widow Late Bishahu. All R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sakari, P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus ~;.:. •• ,.', .: \:/'.-:.';'::'•:'.•' •: ^: 1. Ghanshyam passed Kaushjk, S/o Sukela Kaushik aged 35 yeaFS, R/o Dagori, Post Dagori, Tah. Bilha, Bilaspur. Owner of the vehideCG 10ZB 1927. , 2. Sahebdas Mohila Satnami age 40 years, r/o Dhauranbhata, Post Chakarbhata, Tah. Bilha, Bilaspur (C.G.) Yehicle Driver of Vehicle Nb. CG 10 ZB 1927. 3. Branch . Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Taha Cpmplex Ring Road, Bilaspur(C.G.) I.t, .t'''"'.. ••"''''• ^ -l!t,' {Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicle Act} Present: ! '. '.'•'1,11''1''' '';:".1-: '.'';1 ', • '1 •.'li.l:l-; .•:1:1'1:. ...••"' Mr. Indrasen Sahu, counsel fortheappellants. Mr; J.A. .Lohani, counsel for respondent No.1. None presentforrespondent No,2, though served. Mr. Raj Awasthi and Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, coynsel for responderit Mo.3. " : .. . •" ••• ;.'. ;' 1,,. : ; . •...'.;. :'-.".":....••'::-.': ;. DivisionBench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharmaand Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ ^ GRALORDER (15-9-2010) T.P. Sharma. J: - 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants have challenged the quantum bf compensation awarded by ^y the 3rt Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunaj, Bilaspur (forshortthe ^ l Olaims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.2/2003 vide awarddated 28-1-2004. 2. On aecount ofdeathofBJsahu-hysbandofappellantNo.l&TatherQf app^llants No.2 to 7 on 26-9-2002, ynfortunate wife ^ children of deceased Bisahu haveclaimed compensation of Rs.22,56,000/- against the respondents. At the time of accident, respondent No.1 was driving fhe vehicle dumper bearjng registration No.CG-IO/ZB-1927 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, rashly and negligently, and caused death of Bisahy. Claim petition was repJied by' the respondents and after affording opportunjty of hearing to the parties, the ClaimsTrJbunal hasawarded eompensation ofRs.4;01,000/-against the compehsation claimed Rs.22,56,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award impygned and record of the Ciaims Tribunal. 4, Learned counsel for the appellants yehemently argued that while awarding compensation, the Claims Tribunal has not considered the income of Bisahu and has approved the documentary evidence which reveals that his monthly income was more than Rs.5,OOQ/- pnd iri August, 2002, his income was Rs,4,532/- along with bonus. Learned counsef further argued that the Claims Tribunal has awarded low amount ofcompensationtowarGlslossofestateandlossofconsortium. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of re$pondents Np.1 &3opposedthe appeal andsubmitted thattheClaimsTribunalhas rightly awarded compensatjQn after applying correct multiplier and assessing correct income of the deceased and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding such compensation. 6, In the present case, the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of Bisahu as Rs.3,016/- on the basis of his daily income of Rs,116/-and on the basis of the evidence of official witness Moharsai Kanwar (AW-3) -Assistant Manager, FCI, who hasdeposed his evidence on the basis qf ; i.tt,' ^.^^^^^ -y^.'"^ lx::;"' : iT ./': ',c:-. :•". Son€< .A. documents. Moharsai Kanwar (AW-3) has deposed the date of birth of the deceased as 6-6-1956 whichhasb^en reljed upqn by the Claims Trjbunal. Considering the evjdence of Moharsai Kanwar (AW-3), the Claims Trjbunal has assessed monthly jncome of Bisahy as R$.3,016/- and after applying correct multiplier of 13, total ebmpensation of Rs.4,01,000/- has been awarded to the appellants. While awarding compensation, the Glaims Tribunal has not committed any iilegality and the Claims Tribunal has not awarded low cQmpensafion. 7. On close scrutiriy of evidence, we do not find any illegality in the compensation awarded to the appellants. The appeal Ts, therefore.liable to be disjnjssed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.' Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- ;R.N.Chandrakar Judge •....-j.?' ^^ ;. it ./l.:'\(.^' ."^•'. Zst.',