QGRAM: H£§N’BLE SHRE R&JEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHR! SUML KUMAR SINHA, J‘ vHiGH CC§URT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL§$PUR Q§ViSiGN EENCH @pygimnt Re5pondents NGH~€=3pnum ixa‘n Ma éun No.1 i0 3 immamuddin, S/o Shri Mushiraja, aged about 25 years, Rio Mahadev Transport Champa, Dist janjgir — Champa(CG) 2. Mohammad Huaan Khan S/o AH Ahamad Khan, aged about 55 years, R/G Shiv Taikies, Mam Road, Tikarapara, Bi1a$pur (CG) 3. The New india insurance Company Ltd, Branch, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Biiaspur, D§stt : BHaspur (CG) Reseandem maxi 4. Sadhana Bai, W/o Late Shri, (Qiaimani‘) ij§e$ent Misc. Appeal N035 of 20M. Liia Bai, W/o Late Shiv Kumm Patel, Nan-eppiicant aged about 26 years, Rio Dewarmai Distt : Kama (CG) iiER$IJS Sukhram, €ged about 49 years, R/o Devarmat, PS Korba, Eést BHasgur (CG) MéSG: APPEAL UNPEER $EC?§QN 1?3 OF THE M£§YQR VERECLE$ Q$T, $988 $hri Vined Deehmukh, counsei for the appeltant. Shri Jaishankar Pande‘y, counsei for respomient No.2 She Shreekumar Agrawai, Senier Counsei with Shvi G.V. Krishna Rao, ceunsei for respondent No.3 Nene for {espondent No.4. R) QRaER (18m Febmary, 2m) Th3 foHowing order 0f the Court was passed by Rageev Gispia, $,$. Appeimni Lila Bai; Widew of deceased Shiv Kumar Patel is $eeking enhancement of the compensa’iion awarded by the $econd Additionai Motor Accident C!aims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 09.10.2003, passed in Ciaim Case t N0043/20t’33. 2): ‘As againsa the compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- ciaimed by respondent No.4 Sadhana Bai, mother of deceased Shiv Kumar . Patei, by fmng a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor t vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11021999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum or“ Rs.86,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing sf the cialm petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Shiv Kumar Patel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11:02.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver at the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.i\Il.P.23J/O163; as the above offending vehicie Bus; on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited, and a the insurance company could not estabiish any breach of the policy conditions; the insurance company was iiabie to pay compensation ' to the claimant. 4) As the respondents hava not filed any appea! against the award; the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now aitained finalihj‘ 5} The Tribunal assessed ihe income 0i” the deceased at Re.iS,GOQ/— per ennum 0n the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Scheciuie under Section 163—A of the Meter Vehicle Act. By deducting W3“ of Rs.15,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant’s dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/— per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rsi10,000/- with the muitiplier 0f 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000I—. By awarding further sum of Rs.6:(300/- under other heads; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of RsBSiOCiOI- as compensation to mother and widow of deceased Shiv Kumar Patei, for hie death in the motor aooidenti The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.86,000/~ @ 9% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition tiil the date of aotuai payment. The compensation of Rs.86,DOO/- aesessed by the Tribunal was apportioned between appeliant Lila Bat (widow of deceased Shiv ’ Kumar Patet) and respondent No.4 Sadhana Bat, (mother of deceased Shiv Kumar Patel) in the ratio of Rsr50,DOO/- and Rsr36,DOO/—; respectiveiyr 6) Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs86,00Q/- onlyi 7 ~ Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, warned Seniar Counse! with Shri ) G.V. Krishna Rao, {earned coun3ei for respondenf No.3 the Nationm Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, wpported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs‘86yDDOI— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and ciroum‘stances of the present case. 8) $‘nri Jaishankar Pandey, learned oounsei for respondent No2, the owner of the offending venioie Bus aiso supported the awe ro‘ . g} Apoetiant Liia Bai examined herseif before the Tribunat as NAW-‘i. in parae 16 and 17 of her cross-examination she has categorieaiiy admitted the fact of her second marriage with one Dhooj Rem. $he admitted that she married Dhooj Remin the year 1.997298. The unfortunate accident in which deceased Shiv Kumar Pa‘tei iost his iite took piaoe on 11.92.1999. Thus, it is apparent that Lila Bai had remarried Dhoo} Rem even during the iife time or“ Shiv Kumar Patei and prior to his death in the unfortunate accident. it ie further apparent that on the date of the accident and death of deoeaeed Shiv Kumar Patei, appellant Lita Bat was not at aii dependent on him. to) The compensation of Re.86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the apportionment of the same in the ratio of Rs.50;000/— and Rs.36,Oi3IO/— between appeliant Liia Bai and respondent No4 Sadhana Bat; when examined in the context of the above—mentioned broad features of the case, we are satiefied, is e\/ m? jug? and proper compensafion and ages moi caii for any snhanoement in This appeal. M) Wm appeal Wed by the appenam for enhancement of the compensafion; therefore; is Hame to bn dismissed and in d§smi3sed 12) No order as t0 00$ts. {Sn/‘- Sd/— ' SunilKumar génha l Chief Justlce . Judge