IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(c)No._Atio_/2oii OivisionBenck A-F^ELLANT ^~ Defendant No.3 ^f'he Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ambikapur, Surguja, Branch Manager, Branch Office, Manendragarh Road, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Korba (C.G.). -Versus - RESPONDENT ' Claimant No.2 Smt. Ganeshiya Bai, aged about 45 years, W/o Latejndrapal, Caste - Uraon, R/o Village- Kusmaha, Police Station - Sonhat, Tahsil - Sonhat, Post - Katgodi, District-Koria (C.G.). Ku. Lalita Kujur, aged about 19 years, D/o Late Indrapal, R/o Village- Kusmaha, Police Station - Sonhat, Tahsil - Sonhat, Post - Katgodi, District-Koria (C.G.). RESPONDENT ^Claimant No. 3 ^3, Shri Arjun Kumar, aged about 18 years, S/o Late Indrapal, R/o Village- Kusmaha, Police Station - Sonhat, Tahsil - Sonhat, Post - Katgodi, District-Koria (C.G.). AJ^*" ^n^/^ RESPONDENT ClaimantNo. 4 k4. ^' Smt. Anita, aged about 20 years, Wd/o Late Anil Kumar, R/o Village- Kusmaha, Police Station - Sonhat, Tahsil - Sonhat, Post - Katgodi, District-Koria (C.G.). RESPONDENT DefendantNo. 1 ^ Shri Narayan Pratap Gupta, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Babulal, Occupation -- Driver, R/o Village- Dhummadand, Police Station & Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District-Koria(C.G.) -Driver- RESPONDENT : /^ 6^- Shri Sanjay Pratap Singh, Defendant No. 2 /^ aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Shivnath Singh, Caste - Rajput, Owner of the vehicle, R/o Village- Dhummadand, Police Station 85 Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koria (C.G.) -Owner- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. ^f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLB I. M. QUDDU8I & HON»BLEG. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(Q No. 640 OF 2011 APPBLLANT RE8PONDENTS: The Oriental Insuraace Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gaiieshiya Bai & others MISCBLLANBOUS APPBAL UNDBR SBCyTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Pyesent: Shri Shailendra Shamiay counsel for the appellant, Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for respondents 1 to 4. ORALORDBR (16.11.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraoice Conipaay against fhe ioipugned award dated 03,03,2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korea (Baikuiifhpur) in Claim Case No,61/2010 challengmg fhe MabiUty and quaatum, 2. The appeUaat had got permission u/s 170 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act to challenge fhe quantam, 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of the claimaats are that on 30.05,2010 deceased AnU Kuixiar was goiag froni his 1 village Kiismaha to Kafhgodi Bazar by his Motorcycle to bring domestic goods. At about 7.30 a.m., when he reached at a tope of Bhaiyalal Sahu, a vehicle i.e,, Jeep bearing Regn. No.C.G.16/ 0611, which was beiag driven by non-applicant - ^T^, i'^] 2-2- 4. No. 1 Narayaa Pratap Gupta, ia a rash and negUgent maaner, dashed tiie motorcycle of deceased, due to which, Anil Kmnar was fhrown away aad feU dowii at some distance, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his head and right leg aad when he was brought to the District Hospital for treatment, ftierc he was declared dead, At the time ofaccident, fhe deceased was aged about 21 years, he was workiag as general labour ia Kalyani colUery (area Bhatgaon) of SECL aad was also doiag agricultural works, Accord?ng to fhe salary sUp (Ex,P-8), he was drawiag a monfhly wages ofRs.21,282/-. The claimaats beio^g dependents/legal representatives have filed Clahii Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award ofa total compensation ofRs. 72,29,000/-. The leamed Claims Tribunal haviag regard to the facts situation and miaterial aiid evidence on record has held fhat the Vehicle/Jeep bearing Regn. No, C.G. 16/0611 driven by non-applicant no. 1 ia a rash and negligcnt manncr, dashcd thc Motorcycle, as a reszilt of which, deceased Axiil Kumar died; fhere was no breach of conditions of the insurance poUcy aiid the claioiaats are entitled to rcceive a total compensation of Rs.32,52,752/-. 5. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aad have also ^ gone CfaLTougIi fhc rccords of thc Tribunal, 6. Leamed counsel for the appellaiit raised question fhat fhe driver of the offendiag vehicle was not haviag vaMd and efiective driviag licence but no evidence has been produced by the lusuraace Corapany. The burden of proof was upon fhe appeUaat as m the lower court record, the copy of fhe driviag liccncc of fhc driver is ayailable which shows that he was a^- •-^;s' '^g» ^ ::..:.^ r' ^ authonzed to drive fhe inotorcycle wifh gear and LMV, the driving Ucense was valid upto August, 2010. Thercfore, it caanot be said fhat fhe driver of fhe offendiag vehicle was not haviag valld and effective driviag Ucence. Hence, fhis contention of fhe leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat has no force, So far as it relates to quaatuin, it is not disputed fhat the deceased was aa eiaployee of fhe South Eastera Coal Fields Limited. Ex, P,8 is the pay-sHp for ftie precediag monfh of March 2010 whereia fhe gross salaxy has been shown as Rs,26,411/-, The Clamis Tribunal has onty assessed fhe net pay taken at honxe i.e,, 21,282/-. The deductions xnade agaiast G,P.P., E,P.F., LJ.C., etc,, have not been taken iato consideration by fhe Tribunal. The age of fhe deceased was 21 years and fherefore, proniotional prospects @ 50% werc also Uable to be considered which has not been considered aiid treatmg fhe uicouie @ 21,282/- per nionfh after deductions towards PPF, EPF aad LIC, the Tribunal has assessed fhe total loss of dependency as Rs, 32,17,752/-. If fhe Tribunal wonld have considered fhe proiaotional ayenues aad would have also counted fhe amounts deducted from fhe monfhly salary offhe deceased towards PPF, EPF & LIC, fhe total loss of depeudency would have much more fhaa calculated by the Tribunal. It is also obsenred fhat accordiag to fhe decision of the Suprenie Court ia Sdrla Verma ys» Dethi Transpart CaiporcEtion (2009) 6SCC 121, iffhe number ofdependent faaiily members is 4 to 6, one fourth (l/4th) should have been deducted but the Tribunal has deducted 30% towards personal aad Uvrng j 8. expenses, However, siace there is no cross objection on behatf of fhe claimaats, we are not mcliaed to consider fhe enhancement of the award, but no mterference is possible m fhe amount awaided by the Tribunal in these facts and circum.staD.ces of fhe case, In fhe result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- J-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao