Smt. Leela Bai v. MISC
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. \^ ,"Nr? ^' ^' /f/v/ /^A/ s" /^\ //^^<y^. /.^ // €/'^ 3 Suraj Kumbhkar S/o Brijvilash Aged- 26 years R/o Village Lohdrshi P.S. (Kharoud) Pamgarh District- Janjgir -Champa Shivrinarayan h. C.G. l APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEWECLES ACT A6AINST TH^ AWARD/ORDER…
- Para 77. In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. —~— Sd/- DR. I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur
Judgment
Smt. Leela Bai W/o Late Sopal Sahu Aged 30 Years. Smt. Bhuri Bai W/o Late Fagulal Sahu Aged 56 Years. Both are R/o Village and Salkhan (Kharoud), P.S. Shivrinarayan - Tah. Navagarh, District- janjgir ChampaC.G. APPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS
\^ ,"Nr? ^' ^' /f/v/ /^A/ s" /^\ //^^<y^. /.^ // €/'^ 3 Suraj Kumbhkar S/o Brijvilash Aged- 26 years R/o Village Lohdrshi P.S. (Kharoud) Pamgarh District- Janjgir -Champa Shivrinarayan h. C.G. l APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEWECLES ACT A6AINST TH^ AWARD/ORDER OATEb 13 04-20lTpASSED BY. THE 4th UPPER MOTOR ACCIDENT a.AIMS TEiIBUNAL BILASPUR (CG) PRESIOED OVER BY SHRI S. SHARMA . IN C.T. N0 08/20U.' Appeal valued at Rs. 3.96.000/- <& Court Bee affixed Rs.15/- I—n ^ HIGHCQURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M_. A LQ Np,_ 920_ of 2011 Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Respondents Sint. Leela Bai 8s others Versus MISC, APPEAL^UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: HonTsle Dr. I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Ghanshyam Patel, ATlvocate for the appellant. <r- Shri Manas Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. QRDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day of January, 2012 ) Per Dr.
I. M. Quddusi J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company the impugned award dated 13.4.2011, passed by the 4dl Additional M.A.C.T. Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 8/2011, awarding against a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application, holding the including the appellant/Insurance non-applicants No. Company, as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 1 and 2, Brief facts of the case are that deceased Gopal Sahu was working as Driver of tbe vehicle - Swaraj Mazda, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-C/1194. On 7.8.2010 wheii he was taking the vehicle from Sirgitti to Saraipali, loaded with artie-les, on the way, is why, deceased was getting repaired the vehicle. in front of Satsang Bhavan, Torva, Bilaspur,^the clutch plate of the vehicle got broken. That In that repairing process, while the deceased was beneath the vehicle, some unknown vehicle hit the stationary Swaraj Mazda from the back.side.
As a result of this accident deceased received grievous injuries ahd % ^ during the treatment he died in the hospital on the same day in the night at about 10.30 p.m. The claimants/dependents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs. 10,27,200/-. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded the total sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application, holding the non-applicants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that the vehicle was insured under the 'Comraercial Vehicle - Package Policy wherein the legal liability of two persons for operation/maintenance was there.
Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 provides that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. In the instant case the deceased - Driver was taking the vehicle from Sirgitti to Saraipali. As on the way the vehicle becarne out of order, he was getting repaired the vehicle and the accident had occurred due to the use of the own vehicle. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. —~— Sd/- DR. I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.