SIDDHANT v. Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, R.D.A Building Bajrang Market, G.E. Road

1. Smt. Gouri Gupta Wd/o Late Ashish Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Padouli, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Sitapur, Purani Basti, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Nandlal Gupta Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Padouli, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

3. Nandlal Prasad Gupta S/o Shivnarayan Gupta Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Padouli, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

4. Abhishek Gupta S/o Nandlal Prasad Gupta Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Padouli, Police Station Dhourpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Mahadev Gali, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

5. Shweta Gupta D/o Nandlal Prasad Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Padouli, Police Station Dhourpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Mahadev Gali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --------------(Claimants)

6. Ajit Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Ews 723, Vaishali Nagar, Ward No. 10, Durg, Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ----------------------(Non-Applicant No. 1 Owner-Cum-Driver) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 to 5/ Claimants For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

05.01 .2026 2

1. The Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja passed in Claim Case No. 110/2019 dated 29.06.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,22,504/- with interest at the rate of 7.50% per annum on account of death of Ashish Kumar Gupta.

2. The facts in brief are that on 09.12.2018 at around 10.00 pm the Bolero vehicle of the deceased Ashish Kumar Gupta was dashed by offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 07 AX 2944, resultantly, Ashish Kumar Gupta sustained injuries over head, hands, legs and other parts of body and succumbed to death. The co-occupants of Bolero vehicle sustained serious injuries in said accident. The widow, parents and siblings of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 24 years and he was indulged in Transport business, earning Rs. 23,500/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs. 60,60,500/-. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and took plea that the claimants should have impleaded Insurance Companies of both the vehicles. Further plea was taken that the drivers of both the vehicles were not having valid & effective driving licence and other necessary documents. It was also pleaded that the father of the deceased is a Government servant.

3. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. The claimants examined AW1/Gouri Gupta, AW2/ Dinesh Yadav, AW3/ Nandlal Prasad Gupta. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness.

4. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate would contend that the father of the 3 deceased was a Government servant, and therefore, the claimant No. 4 and 5 who are major siblings of the deceased should have not been treated as dependant on the income of the deceased. He would further contend that the claimants could not establish the fact that after death of Ashish Kumar Gupta the Transport business was closed, and thus, there was loss of management only. He would submit that there was head-on-collision between two vehicles, and therefore, the learned Tribunal should have framed issue with regard to contributory negligence. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at higher side. He would pray to set-aside the award.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate appearing for the claimants would oppose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. It is also contended that the Insurance Company failed to take all these grounds before the learned Tribunal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjusha & ORS. vs. United India Assurance Company Limited & ANR. passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5885 of 2019, while dealing with the similar issue in para 13 held as under :- “13. In this context, we cannot but notice Ramkhiladi v United India Insurance Co.1, in which there was a contention taken by the claimant that the deceased was employed by the owner of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held in paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the deceased driver was an employee of the owner. Pleadings and proof of such pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that there can be no proof offered without specific pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by the insurance 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 4 company, either before the Tribunal, as we see from the award made, nor in the appeal filed before the High Court as we see from the memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court.

8. Perusal of reply filed by the Insurance Company would reveal that the Insurance Company did not take grounds which have been raised before this Court. The Insurance Company also failed to examine its witness to prove the fact that the siblings of the deceased were not dependant on the income of the deceased. It is also not proved by the Insurance Company that even after death of Ashish Kumar Gupta, the claimants were operating Transport business. Thus, applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjusha & Ors. (supra) the contention made by Mr. Agrawal is hereby rejected.

9. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased placing reliance on the income tax return and I do not find any good ground to interfere with such finding. The claimants pleaded and proved the fact that the siblings of the deceased were dependant on the income of the deceased and the Insurance Company failed to prove contrary. Further, it is finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal and I do not find any reason to disturb such finding.

10. With regard to contributory negligence, no plea was taken in the reply filed by the Insurance Company and further Insurance Company failed to led evidence; therefore, no issue was framed in this regard by the learned Tribunal, accordingly, the contention made by Mr. Agrawal is hereby rejected.

11. The learned Tribunal after due appreciation of documentary and oral evidence passed an award in favour of the claimants and which does not suffer from perversity or illegality. 5

12. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge