Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.1424 of 2018 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited By Manager Divisional Office First Floor Chouhan State G.E. Road Supela Bhilai Through Authorised Singatory For The New India Insurance (Assurance) Company Limited Bilaspur Divisional Office, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant 1 - Idrabati Nishad Wd/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Dageswari D/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Natural Mother Indravati Wd/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal, R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Khileswari D/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Natural Mother Indravati Wd/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal, R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Ku. Omin D/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal Minor Through Their Guardian Natural Mother Indravati Wd/o Late Bhupendra Alias Sadhe Lal, R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Channi W/o Vishn Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vishnu S/o Late Kanshram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Nageswar S/o Vishn Nishad Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Bargaon Police Station And Tehsil Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants) 8 - Ramashanker S/o Late Nagina Rai Aged About 45 Years R/o Hind Tire Work Simga District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh......(Driver), District, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh 9 - Mohammad Gulam Rasool S/o Mohammad Saied Aged About 30
Legal Reasoning
Years R/o Ward No. 11 Tigadda Chouk Simga Disrict- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh....(Owner) Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande and Ms. Shweta Bole, For Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Nos.8 to 9 : Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate Advocates Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against 3 the award 05.05.2018 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No.85/2016, whereby claim of the claimants has been partly allowed by awarding Rs.14,40,880/- in their favour and the liability to pay the said amount has been fastened upon the appellant insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2016 at about 8:30 pm, the deceased Bhupendra alias Sadhe Lal, aged 30 yrs a labourer, was traveling on a Tractor bearing No.CG 07/NA/7012 attached with husk loaded Trolley was dashed from the back by a Truck bearing No.04-JB-3843, consequently Bhupendra sustained head injuries and died on following day. The report relating to mishap was lodged at Police Station Berla, upon which an offence u/s 279, 337 was registered and after investigation charge sheet u/s 279,337,304-A of I.P.C was submitted before the Magistrate concerned against driver of the Offending Truck i.e. respondent No.8 herein. Subsequently, claim case was filed by the claimants, who are the family of the deceased, which was partly allowed and they were awarded Rs.14,40,880/- as compensation and the liability to pay the said amount was fastened upon the appellant insurance company, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award is perverse, illegal and contrary to law. The learned 4 Tribunal while considering the compensation has overlooked the evidence reflecting factum of accident and declined to apply doctrine of contributory Negligence, as two vehicles were involved in the accident, one is offending vehicle and other is Tractor on which deceased had occupied a seat. Since deceased was illegally permitted to be seated on the Tractor, negligence was on the part of Tractor Driver as well as deceased. No evidence has been adduced on income of the deceased except mere version of his widow that her husband by performing labour work was earning daily Rs.200-250 but no certificate in order to show such income has been produced. However in the absence of any positive evidence with regard to income of the deceased learned Tribunal below has proceeded with notional income and as such held Rs 200/ per day income of the deceased. Since deceased was a labourer his per month income for the working day ought to have been taken into account and as such instead of Rs 6000 pm, his Notional Income ought to have been assessed Rs 4,500/pm and while working out the loss of dependency, learned Tribunal did not correctly apply deduction as against deceased’s own expenditure. In fact 1/3 deduction ought to have been worked out instead of 1/5th. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants opposes the submission made by the appellant’s counsel and submits that the learned Tribunal after appreciating the oral and 5 documentary evidence available on record has rightly awarded the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 & 9 supports the impugned award. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The learned Tribunal framed/decided the issue No.2 for contributory negligence as under:- dz 2 okniz’u fu"d"kZ D;k mDr nq?kZVuk esa VSªDVj pkyd dh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk gS \ ugha After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal found that due to said accident, criminal case was registered against the driver/respondent No.8 herein of offending truck bearing Registration No.CG04-JB-3843 for the offence under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and the charge sheet was filed against the driver and the owner of the offending truck under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and as per documents of criminal case, it is proved that the truck driver dashed the tractor from behind, in which the deceased was sitting, as a result of which the tractor turned down and the deceased severe injuries on his head and died during treatment. 8. The learned Tribunal in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 found that the 6 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver and no fault was found of tractor driver and the deceased and decided the issues against the non applicant Nos.1, 2 & 3 and in favour of claimants. It is clear that the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated all documents of criminal case and oral evidence of witnesses and rightly found that no fault was found of the deceased and tractor driver. This Court also found that the learned Trial Court rightly decided issue No.2 in favour of the claimants and against the non applicant Nos.1, 2 & 3. 9. The learned Trial Court found that the deceased was working as labourer and calculated his notional income as Rs.6000/- per month. It is also clear that the respondent Nos.1 to 7 are dependent upon the deceased. The respondent No.1 is the wife of deceased, whereas respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the deceased’s minor children, respondent Nos.5 & 6 are deceased’s parents, whereas respondent No.7 is the brother of the deceased, as such the learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/5th share/amount from the income of the deceased as personal expenses and as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the deceased, who was 29 years of age at the time of accident. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on the documentary evidence available 7 on record as well as guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such no interference is called for by this Court. 10.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge