3W n W ‘5», HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0. 546 0f 2005 Om PrakaSh Gajendra, S/ o Late Punit Ram Gajendra, aged 24 years, Vehicle owner, R/o Loco Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.)‘. 2. Vinod Singh, S/o R. B. Singh, agod about 33 years, Rio Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Appellants 1. . /‘2:\/' Versus Respondents 1‘ 2. Smt. Vanshraji, Wd/ o Late Ram Kumar, aged about 45 years. Sant Ram S/o Late Ram Kumar, aged about 23 years, both by caste— Kenwat, R] 0 Old Mines Bhatgaon Colliery, P.S. Pratappur, District— Surajpur (C.G.). 3. National Insurance Comparxy Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Bilaspur, Zonal O$ce, Raipur (C.G.), ‘ 4. Anjl Kumar Thakur, S/ o Shivpal Ram, aged about 22 years, by occupation— Driver, R/o Village— Sohagpur, RS. Pratappur, Dishict— Sarguja (C.G.). 5. Ganesh Prasad Sahu, Slo Abhinath Sahu, aged about 28 years, Vehicle Owner, Rf o Village- Jhopradapara, Hardi Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). V DB: 8r. Hon’ble Hon’ble Shn' Shri Justice Justice S. Satish R. Nayak, K. Agnjhotri, C.J. J. Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for the appellants. ORAL ORDER ( 5th December 2005) L The following order of the Court was passed by S. R.sNayak, C.J. tor vehicle involved in the accident being 1. The owner of the mo d in Claim Case No. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal peal. The fact that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent r of the motor vehicle owned by the aggrieved by the award dated 31. 1.2005 passe 7/2004 by Third Additional (F.T.C.) Soorajpnr, District-Surguja has preferred this ap driving of the drive petitioner] appellant is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need ‘1 . l j l ‘ for us to review the 11ding mcorded by the: Tribunal on the issue relating to the actionable negligexlce. While assaih'ng the impugned award Shri Prajapati would contend t11at3 (i) the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6164/-, and as per the evidence of his son/claimant, the deceased was eaniing only Rs. 50/ — to Rs. 60/ — per day; (ii) that on the date of accident, the deceased was 6O years of age and the Tiibunal wrongly took the age of the deceased as 50 years and applied multiplier 13; (iii) that the Tribunal has erred in law in exonerating the Insurance V . Company horn the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the insurance policy produced by the appellant is not the one issued by the respondent] Insurance Company. 3. Having heard leamed counsel for the appellant for considerable time, after having perused the original records placed before us, we do not find any merit in any of the above contentions urged before us by learned counsel. 4. In support of the income of the deceased the claimants have t produced salary certificate marked as Exhibit A/ 9, issued by the Management of the S.E.C.L. as per which the salaiy of the deceased was Rs. 6 164/-. After allowing permissible deductions for s the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency’, the menthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 4109/-. Even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal for assessing the loss of dependency taking the age of the deceased as 5O years is unexceptionable in View of the documentary evidence produced in the case. Although it was v-\ asserted in the statement of objection filed by the appellant that the deceased was aged 60 years, no proof in support of that claim [Q n r. was led before the Tribunal This takes us to the question whether the Tribunal is justiiied in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation. The Tlibunal having appxeeiated the >material documents and the oral evidence has opined that the Insurance ‘Policy produced by the petitioner/appellant is a collcocted document. In aniving‘at that conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the oral evidence of the Manager of the Insurance Company. Since the Insurance Company has denied the issuance of the policy in favour of the appellant, it was the onus of the appellant to discharge the onus that as a matter of fact that the respdiident/Insurance Company has issued the policy. The appellant has utterly failed to discharge that onus. Therefore, we cannot take any exception to the order of the award of the Tribunal exempting the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation to the dependents of the deceased. No other point Was urged before us. The appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly s . l‘hakur dismissed. No costs. A ‘ . ’” Sd/- Sdl- SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Chief Jusdce ' ' Judge