IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT r J^ESPONDENTS <N Cie^-v^i Misc. Appeal (C) No. ^^ /2011 gjngtt Bencb -Govind Narayan Pandey, S/o Ramjivan Pandey, aged about 35 years, Caste - Bramhan, Resident of Village - Haripur, Post Kalyanpur, P.S. Jaynagar, District - Surguj'a (C.G.) (Non-applicant no. 2) VERSUS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through - Oriental tnsurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (Non-applicantno. 1) 2./%- -Slwf^h-Pandey, @ Parsuram @ Lalan Pandey, S/o Sachitanand Pandey, aged about 66 years, Residentof Namnakala, Near Power House, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (Non-applicant no. 3) Sopal S/o Thakur, aged about 70 years, Chamm, S/o Sopal, aged about 40 years, Shivbhajan S/o Sopal, aged about 35 years, Pransay, S/o Sopal aged about 30 years, Puran S/o-Sopal, aged about 25 years, Respondent no. 3 to 7 are by caste— Rajwar, and resident of village - Brijnagar, P.8. Jaynagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (Claimants) ^ ^ ^.- II • T; MISC. APPEALUNDER SECTION'173 OF IViOTOR VEHICLES ACT. -A., i.io^.^_^u£^.A^Ua^jL^^j^..4J-t^x-Al^.Kv^_, .-iio__na m-._^_._.._ ^t5^^. fflGH COURT OF CHIIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kuinar Mishra Misc. Appeal (C} No. 709/2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Govind Narayan Pandey Versus The Oriental Insm'ance Company Limited and others 'Appearance: Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel fbr the appeilant. MISC. APPEAL UNDER 8ECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ORAL ORDER (6.07.2011) Heard. (2) Tlus appeal has been filed by the owner ofthe tmck which is a heavy goods vehicle challenging the award passed by the tribunal under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act and while granting compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the claimants it has absolved the Insurance Company from the liability ofpayment ofcompensation. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal was not correct in relying on the documerits and evidence collected during the investigation of the criminal case arising out of the accident. According to him when the claimants themselves have stated that the deceased was working as labourer, the tribunal should have believed the said statement. (4) In para 10 of the award it has been specifically held by the tribunal that in all the documents concerning the investigation of the '^^^ -2- crime by the police it has been established that the deceased was traveling iii the offending truck zvhich is a goods vehicle. (5) In the matter of Oriesital Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla and others, (2007) 13 SCC 476 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 14 ofthejudgment has held that, "14. Once a part ofthe FIR is relied upon, leamed Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part and that if the contents have been proved, the question ofreliance thereupon only upon a part thereofand not upon the rest on the technical ground that the same liad not been proved in accordance with lavv, would not arise." (6) In the present case the claimants ha^e relied upon the FIR and other documents of the criminal trial to prove the factum of accideiit and once they have doiie so, the documents have to be relied as a whole and therefore the tribunal has not committed any illegality in recording the finding that the deceased was traveling as a passenger in the otYending tmck which is goods vehicle. (7) The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/'- only for death ofthe deceased vvho was aged about'60 years. The tribunal has not assessed the loss of income as well as the loss of love and afFection. loss of estate etc and has awarded a lump sum amount of compensation, therefore, it cannot be said that the award is on higher side. (8) In view ofthe above, there being no substance in this appeal, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge ty^-