^'.?3a^%?S''.'e;.s<"%'^A<%Ms"i^~w^s-^="w?^?"^i?@*^^®s?^^''S'S";:-t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ ONsi'Oi MISC.APPEALrCTNO. 3S /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT /INSURER y Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301, 302 y^—t^^f>cAl^— Corporate House 169 RNT ^Sh"--"-""" _^»——- Market, Opposite Jhabua Tower, t, uppc ff"1^-^'1'1^' =rT<"'ppp't ^^ RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^' 2.^" ..--'" <*•' 7 .8 VERSUS Naseema Begum Wd/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 40 years, Ku. Shahana D/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 17 years, Ku. Farjana D/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 16 years, Moh. Aamir S/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 15 years, Ku. Rukhsana D/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 13 years, Moh. Shahjad S/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 10 years, Moh. Samir S/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 10 years, Ku. Sultana D/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 8 years, Moh. Sohel S/o Moh. Nasem Ansari, aged about 7 years, Respondents No. 2 to 9 are being minor represented mother Naseema Begum, R/o village & DRIVER QWNER Post - Saragaon, P.S. Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3,0 Arvind S/o Indrajeet Shahni, R/o village & Post - Hirmi, P.S. Suhela, District - Raipur (C.G.) ll^- Amit S/o Laxminarayan Gajalwar, R/o Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS.5,71.880/- ^_.h^-' COURT FEE AFFIXED Rs. I5/- HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISeARHATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR.I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. PRASHANT KUMAR MiSHRA, JJ. M.A.icl N0.98 OF 2011 Reliance General insurance Company Limited. Versus Naseema Begum & others Present : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Adv. forthe appeiiant. isT !er i.fln. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant-insurance Company has preferred this appeai against the award dated 27.11.2010 passed in Claim Case No.61/2009 by the iearned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short 'the Tribunal') allowing the claim appiication of the ciaimante and fastening liabiiityon the appeliant- Insurance uompanyto paythe compensation to tne claimams. 3. Brief facts ofthe case are that on 18.01.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. near Basin Turn, Viilage Suhela, motorcycte of deceased Nasesm Ansari, bearing registration number CG04-CR-9491, was dashed by the vehicie bearing registration number CG10-C-2064 ana' the deceased died due to (arievous and ' fatal injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The claimants, who are . widow and minor chiidren ofthe deceased, have fiied a ciaim petition before the rribunal una'er Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.14,44,OOO/'- forthe death ofsaid Naseem Ansari on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, wAo was the sote earning member in the family, and due to his untimely death, they have suffered ioss OT income. 4. The Tribunai, after consid.ering the issues framed by it, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,71,800/- to the claimanis along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date oTthe application. 5. Learned counsei for ihe appeiiant-lnsurance Company has assaiied the impugned award on two grounds, firstly, there was breach of the insurancs' policy as the ofrending vehicie was not having valid permit to piy the vehicie; and second ground is regarding the quantum Tlxed by the Tribunai. 8. We have heard tearned counsel forthe appellant and perused the records ofthe, Tribunai as also the findings given in the impugned award. -2-- 7. So far as the first argument of ieamed counsei for the appeliant-insurance Company is concerned, in this regard the Tribunal has already observed that the Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit and thys, the same was plied in breach of conditions ofinsurance poiicy. The burden ofproofofthe same was upon the insurance Company and in absence of any proof, it is not open for ihe appellant Insurance Company to raise this ground. Therefore; we do not find any force in this contention ofthe learned forthe appellant-lnsurance Company. 8. So far as the second argument of the learned counsei for the appellant is concerned, from perusal of ihe records, we found that the Tribuna! has caicuiated the loss of dependency on^the basis of units i.e. 1 unit for each 8 minor children of the deceased and 2 units each for the widow and the Though in the matter of Saria Verma (Smt) and others -vs- Delhi Transport ',wfwra»onand another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personai and iiving expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Triiok Chandra, the generai practice is to appiy standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of ihe view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and wing expenses ofthe ) deceased, shouid be one-third (1/3'") where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4 ) whwa the number of deoendent familv members is 4 to 6. and one-fiflth C1/5 1 where the number of dependent family members is exceeds six. But, in iight of the observations made by the Hon'ble Three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-15 of the judgment deiivered in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra reported in [1998) 4 SCC 362, it cannot be said that the method adopted by the Tribunal to assess the compensation is improper or the amount awarded by the Tribunai is too excessive. i.0n the basis of above discussion, the instant appeai has no force, the same a'eserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. 11. No order as to costs. ^-?__ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sdl- Prasbant Kumar Mishra Judge- f