^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l M.A. fC 1 N0. w , 2007 APPELLANTS /<if / RESPONDENTS ;./ ^"' :1. Smt. Sunita Pandey, Wd/o. Late Yuvraj Pandey, aged 33 years, Ramgopal Pandey, son of late Yuvraj Pandey, aged 12 years, Prashant Pandey, son of 'late Yuvraj.Pandey, aged 10 years All residents of Pithora, P.S. Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) No.2 and No.3 minors, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Sunita No.l. VERSUS Ram Avadh Yadav, Son of Shivshankar Yadav, aged about 27 years, resident of Alman Ganj, P.S. Satpura, District Baliya (U.P.) Througti S.S.R. Road Liance, Tatibandti Raipur(C.G.) Guljar Singh son of Nirmal Singh, aged 45. years, resident of 5 Chandranath Chatterjee Marg, Bhawanipur, District - Kolkata (W.B.), Through : S.S.R. Road Liance, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 3,.- National Insurance Company Limited, Poddar Court Gate No.4, 18 Ravindra Saini, Kolkata (W.B.), througti: Regional Office National Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Rod, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TH E JKOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 XI-HC-22 3Ti^rq;r R-<feh 3n^T Sht| Hf?tT T5? •-i'lww^, aTfly'is, Rtctitfy 311^1 M5fct) *<1*<MI Shlltti ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 f°res 311^1 ^wiwHfer Division Bench : HQn._Mr,Y,K,.Shrivastava Hon. Mr.Dhirendra Mishra, JJ Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, None for the respondents. This Misc. Appeal under 1988 has been preferred by the passed in their favour for the <j pection 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act, Maimants for enhancement of the award |eath of Yuvraj Pandey, who was the husband of appellant No.1 and f]ather of appeliants No.2 and 3, by the 'earned Second Additiona! Motor /] (for short "the Tribunal"), in claim claim case ofthe appeiiants award| The instant appeal has bee| grqund th.at the deceased was| saiary. To substantiate this, a sa] ciaimants and was duly proved. monthiy salary of the deceased a^ above compensation, which is orj impugned award. In para 13 of the document Ex.P/8 (salary certi^ and proveci by the employer, on tl1 nor any documentary evidence rej 'bi'iiFfi'ifl'f MitidTff Fs^ <FSit<i< ^srf^q-sn^T ounsel for the appellants. kccidents Claims Tribunai, iVlahasamund ;ase No.220/2006, whereby allowing the id a sum of Rs.6,92,000./-. i preferred by the appeliants only on the working as Supervisor in a Gudaku Company and v»'as getting an anflount of Rs. 10.000/- per month towards ary certificate (Ex.P/8) was fiied by the Howe'/er, the Tribuna! assessing the Rs.5,000'- per month, has awarded the the face of it contrary to the evidence avaiiabie on record. We have heard learned c^unsei for the parties and perused the he award, the Tribunai has disbelieved icate), issued by thffe Gudaku Company e ground that neither appointment letter jarding disbursement of above saiary or XI-HC-22 TSf ^Wvi^, ®Tfl<-1'IG,fsfdl^y ffWWl a?q|ch 311^1^^^ ^'ito^°;_1' v^ td*<A an^rqir f^fTOSTI^T s*itii+yRd Gowri sfi^i (•wiwflf^a' -'L-1 the income Tax return has been filed evidence that the deceased wels Company, Raipur and v/as obtain) towards salary, assessed the ^, Rs.5,000/- per month and passed In view of ihe above, we reason for which the saiary certific^ & proper and no interference is ca! In the resuit, the appeal bej disrnissed and is acsert-dinaiv dismil °hl''ltd'in-< «IHfl1'ifte(^'<Rl<^l< ^isrf^tTsn^r |by the claimants. The Tribunal cn the [s eariier engaged wlth one Doiphln |ng an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month jarning capacity of the deceased at impugned award. jare of the considered oDJnion that the tte (Ex.P/8) has been dlsbelieved is just for in the impugned award. |ng devoid of substance desen/es to be ised. ___-—•—^ SAI- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (•fli^f^) \r