HI6H CGURT OF JUMC^TURE CHHATUSe^RH : BILASPUft DIVISION BENCH COR^M : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. D^TTU. CJ A HON'BLE SHM V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. r- APPBljtNTS ftESPONbB4TS MISC. APPEAL fO N0. 303 of 2007 1} Smt Bharti Nishad, Age - 20 years, -W/o Bhimendra Kumar Nishad, Occupation - House Wife, R/o Mohaniaycyara, Aaran9, Toh - Aarang, Oistrict - Roipur (C6) 2) Vedprd<ash Nishad, Aqe - 1 month S/o Bhimendra Kumor Nishcri (On beholf of minor - Appeiiant no.2. His mother Smt Bharti Ni^iad, Appellmt No.l, os a Next Friend) Versus 1) Shyamld Sohu, S/o Siyaram Sahu, Age - 26 years, Occupation - Ccr driver, R/o Through - Director, Health department, Behind - "Mantraloy" Rdpur, Tah A bistrict - Raipur (CC) 2) Director, Health Depcrtment, brfiind "Mantrday" Raipur, Tah A District - Raipur (C6) 3) ©ovtof Chhattisgarh. Through - Coilector. District - Rtripur (C6) 4) Dulari Nishad, Age - 44 yers W/o Sunderlal Nishad, 5) Sunderlal Nishad. S/o Ratnu Nishad, Age - 60 Years 6) Kumari Oiitralekha, Minor Age -12 Ycors. &/o Simderlcl NJ^ICKJ 1\ 7) Durgesh Nishad. Minor, Age - 10 yews, s/o SiBiderlal nishad 8) Suresh Kumcr Nishad, Minor, Age - 12 years, S/o Sunderlal Nishad On behalf of minor respondents No. 6 to 8 thejr mother respondent hto.4 Smt &ulari Bd QS next friend. Respondents No.4 to 8 resident of Vjtlage ©ujra,Post Lakholi, P.S. Mandir Hasaod. Tahsil A Di^trict ftdpur. Present : ^iri AS Iqbal. counset for 1+»eoppeilant. None for the respondents. OftAL ORbER (Passed on 13th Morch, 2007) Tlie following orai order of th®Court- wos passed by Vjjay Ktflnar Shrivastava. J. This is OCT appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (henceforth "the Act") for enhancement of compensation, and modification of the award has been preferred against the award dated 17.10.2006, passed by Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunat, (FTC), Raipur (C6) (henceforth "the TribunaJ") in ctaim case No.61/2005. whe»ieby a compensation award of Rs.3,47,000/- has been pas^d. 2) Brief facts of the case ar® that, on 31.03.2004, Bhimendra Nidiad (since deceased) was going from ftaipur to Lakholi on his Motorcycle, he met with an accident Gaused by a car beGring; registration No.C^-02-1921 (for diort "1+ie \ offending yehicJe") sustained injuries ond succumbed to those. Consequently, a petition under Section 166 of th^ Act has been filed by the oppellonts, who are wife oand son of the dec^xsed, against respondents No.l to 3, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle< Respondents No.4 to 8, who are parents, brother <& sister of the dececised also filed a separate application under Section 166 of the Act Respondents, who are driver wid owner of the offending vehicle, contested the claim. 3) Learned Tribunal enquired bo1+i the petitions together and passed award in favour of the appelkmts as well as respondents No.4 to 8. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as below: (a) Loss of dependency (b) Funeral expen^s (c) Loss of consortium (d) Love and affection (e) Loss of estate Total Award fts.2,72,000/- < Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.35,000/- Rs.3.47.000/- 4) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal did not pass just and reasonable award and also erred in allowing the compensation to parents, broth&rs and sister of the deceased. 5) We have gone through the award. In absence of evidence of the employer or any documents to substantiate the income of the deceased, claimants failed to prove income of the dec»ased. \ however, the Tribunal has allowed Rs.2,000/- per month as income of the deceqsed, after deducting 1/3 towards his own ..^s.^.., ^ to expenses, at the relevant time age of the deceased was 24 years, therefore, applied multiplier of 17 and recorded loss of dependency Ks.2,72,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded amount for funeral expenses, consortium, love and affection. So far amount awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is just ond proper. 6) From the evidence relied on by the Tribunal, it is evident that respondents No.4 to 8 who are parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, they were also living alon9 with the deceased and dependent upon the deceased, Respondents No.4 to 8 being legal representatives of the deceased are eligible for 9rant of compensation. Section 166 of the Act authorized all legal representatives who are dependents on the deceased to claim and receive compensation. 7) In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.(C.)P.No.419/2007 stonds disposed z^ of, Sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge