HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Misc. Appeal No. 794 of 2003 Mumtaz Begum, aged about 35 years, Wd/o Late Rasid Khan, R/o New Basti, Raja Talab, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Jagat Ram, aged about 30 years, S/o Kirodilal Sahu, r/o Sarvodaya Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur(CG) (DRIVER) ^, 2. Kuldip Singh, (Deceased), S/o Pritam Singh, r/o H.I.G. C/7, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG) (OWNER) 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Tah.And Distt. Raipur(CG) (INSURER) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate withShri Roop Naik, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 03.02.2010) Per T.P.Sharma, J. The appellant has challenged the illegality and propriety of the dismissal oftHe claim petition dated 10"' April, 2003 passed by the 3rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in claim case No.31/2002 whereby the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has,.not proved the ownership and number of truck (water tanker) No. M.P.T. 9961 (for short 'the offending truck') - - , 'i^r-''^^^^;. s S; ff ;fa^'..f .^b Y 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant on account of death of her daughter Ku. Shahin Parvin in the motor accident occurred on -18.06.2002. At the time of accident, the offending truck, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent, was being driven respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and caused grievous injuries, due to which, Ku. Shahin Parvin died instantaneously on the spot. The respondents have denied the allegations of the claim petition. Issues were framed and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the appellant has not proved the fact of ownership .and number of truck (water tanker) No. M.P.T. 9961. \ 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 4. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, the appellant adduced sufficient evidence, oral as well as documentary, to show that offending truck was being driven by appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 was the owner of that offending truck. Despite the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that in F.1.R. Ex.P.2, the number of offending truck was mentioned as M.P. 23-9961 and not M.P.T. 9961 and on account of clerical error; the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the appeal and submits that the appellant was under obligation to prove that number of offending vehicle was M.P.T. 9961 but the appellant had failed to discharge her burden of proof, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. c 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. P.W.2 Hanifullah Khan, who was present at the spot, has specifically deposed that the number of vehicle was M.P.T. 9961. Although he has admitted in his*cross-examination that in the F.1.R. the number ofvehicle was written as M.P. 23-9961 but he has denied the suggestion that he was not ^----"\ n present on the spot at the time of accident. Appellant has filed a copy of F.1.R. as Ex.P.1 which revealed that number of offending truck(water tanker) was written as M.P. 23-9961. On the same day, the offending truck was seized vide Ex.P.5 in which the number of offending truck (water tanker) was written as M.P.T. 9961. Copy ofthe charge sheet also revealed that number of offending vehicle was M.P.T. 9961. 7. Respondents have not adduced any evidence to counter the evidence and allegations made in the claim application. It appears that only on the ground of technicality, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition. 8. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial legislation and the Claims Tribunals are required to decide the claim petitions in its letter and spirit andshall not dismiss the claim petitions ohly on the ground of technicality. The documentary evidence available on record reveals that number of offending truck was M.P.T. 9961 buton account of some mistake it haswrongly been mentioned in the F.1.R. as M.P. 23-9961. On account of technicality, the dismissal ofthe claim petition was not proper. 9. As regards the compensation claimed in the petition, according to autopsy report, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 13 years and shewas unmamed. The.claimant is a mother. No specific income ofthe deceased has been pleaded and proved and the accident occurred in the year 2002. Considering the price index and cost of living., the notional monthly income in the year 2002 can safely be presumed as Rs.2500/-. Likewise, the annual income would come to Rs.30,000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried daughter and claimant is her mother, multiplier of 10 would be appropriate. After deducting one half as personal expenses of the deceased, the amount would be Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.2500/- x 12x10 divide^ by two). 10. With a view to avoid the 'cflspute relating to interest, it would be better to quantify the interest and Rs.10,000/- total interest would be reasonable. In addition to interest, Rs.2000/- for last ritUals (funeral expenses) and Rs.5000/- for _ather expenses would be proper in the present case. Thus, total compensation would come to Rs.1,67,000/- and the appe)lant/claimant, "vw^k.Mi.Kw&iesa,:. ^ mother of the deceased is entitled Rs.1,67,000/- as compensation on account of death of her daughter Shahin Parvin. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside. The vehicle was insured on the date of accident, the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. The respondent No.3 shall pay compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- to the appellant within 3 months from today. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge