ATTE$GARH E‘T EILA$PUR HEG?E CQURT OF SHE mw. AwEAL (a; m. ggsi2ao4 Munnalal 14105336 i-EF?ELKJANT A?PL1CANT VEREMS w aQE§POKDEET$ NQN—APPLICANTS Pallkaj Singh $1, two oth€r§. PQ$T FGR JUDGMENT ON 01 435—2007 . r/ N .Dhirendra Mishm \ g} HEGH COURT GF CHEATTISGARH AT &ILASPUR MESC. APPEAL {C) E$. 395/2604 APPELLAE‘ET APPLICANT Munnalal Kos;1e, Son of Shii Jhumuklal K0516, aged about 43 years, Eewicg, residént of Villag€ Gajiya Nawagaon, Police Stan'on and Tah Mungeli, Disfrrict Bilaspur (CtGJ VERSUg 1. Pallkaj Singh, S/o. Shri Dhai RE§PGPEDENT$ Peasant: .ML ManOj Chouhan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the respondents No. 3/ Insurance Company. J U D G M E N T iDelivereti on a! [05/2007) mmrendra Mishrag J The appellant has prefened this appeal for enhancement of award dated 29.12.2003 passed by Ieanaleti III Adaitional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ETC) Mungeli in claim case Noll/2002, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of {£38,000} — only with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him on 4.2.2002 when Tata Sumo jeep owned by reepondent' No. 1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, dashed against a tree and overturned. NON-AFPLICAN’I‘S Singh, aged ahout 47 years, R/o. Padav Chow}: Mungeli, near Ware House, RS. and Tah. Mungeh, DiStt. Bilaspur (OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO NC). NIP26E/Af213 1) Rakesh Kumar alias Baba, SO11 of Chhotelal Singh Thakur, aged about 4O years, reeident of Mungeii, Waster ReseIVoir Tank, Tall alld RS. Mungeh', Distt. Bilaspur (CG) DRIVER QF‘ TATA SUMO NO. MP26E A2131 INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT) 3. Brailch Manager, United india InSurance Company Limited, Branch 011103, Rajendm Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C‘G‘) (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) 34 t0 2, Grievanct: of the appellant iS that the lEanl‘Sd Tribunal has not awardEd compensation for th€ period from 4.2.2002 to 25.5.2002 whim 11s waS compdlrsd to b6 011 16am: chm to t11€ illjuria$ sustailmd bV him ill $116 acciclent 3 Reh'anca is plaC€d 011 the judgmenis in the matter 0f Hdayram Vs. Mehu‘L Usman and othem mported in 1991 MamSa 5E WEE.) aim m the mattar of Eiimane§ai Roml Trmmiiert Coi’poration and anoiher V§. §§aaeshwar Sharma ami aimthe? mported in 2092(13 g. fwcideilt Elaim Ca3e. 21?. 4. m appdlant has also aSSaJlsd the mldmg of th€ Tnbunal b) a 11101 ’Lho Tnbunal haS €Xon€1ated the rwpondcnt No o/Inauanpe Company from the hablh‘qv‘ of sa’mSfymg th€ award 011 tho gmuud that Elm V€hicl€ wass mgistssmd arid iilsured for pn‘vats purposas, howaver, at fhe. timg of accident numbor of pa3sang€rs were max/761mg in the said which 1‘11 breach of inssuranco policy conditions. 5. On tho other hand, loamled counsol for tho respondont No. 3/‘Insuranco Company, has suppoftod the impugnod award and Submitted That from tho medical aild oral ovidonco availablo 011 rocord it i3 ovidont that tho appellant did not suffer any grievous injuries. There is 110 ovidouco on record to Show that tho appolhmt romainod on loavo from 4.2.2002 to 25.5.2002 on account of tho mjurios ouotajnod by him. Tho finding of tho loaniod Tribunal that tho appollant was not deprived of any wagos for tho abovo period as ho was a government employee and was; entitled for loavel which i5 radmi‘rted 13V the appellant accordmg to paraoraph 13 of his; statemont, is Justlfled and. booed on the ev1dence on 1oc01d However With respeet to the second Ground of the appeal that inourance company has been illegally exonerated by the nnpugned award} it is submitted that from the evitlence available on record it is evident that at the time of accident, number of pheaengere were traveling in the vehicle in question, on invoatication by the insurance eompanv 1t was 1e oaled that the Jeep “as, bemu need as a tar} f01 carrying passengers after charging fare and as such, the vehicle was being need in breach of inanrance policy conditions. L. “39/ 6. I hava haaud laarned commel for the 136111165 a11d pcrussd Fm matcnal avallabh, 011 16C01d 111dudmg the unpuOnEd awald 7. It i3 not in dispute that th€ appellalit waS Rural Agm'culture ExtEIision offlcer in the agxicultum departmant. It is 6:130 $1116 ihat except the statement on oath of the appellant that he waé; 011 leave from 4.2.2002 to 25.5.2002 on account of injuriei; Sustained by him 1‘11 the aeolclent, there is 11o doeumenteuy evidence adduced by the appellallt/ claimant that he applied for leave for the above period 011 medical ground aiid the ealne waS sanctioned by his employer and thus, he remained on leave for the said period. The Tribunal has negated the claim of the appellant on this head with a finding that he has still 17- 18 years to seive as a goveinment sewant and in these circumsstances) it would not he just and appropriate to compensate the claimant for the losses towards leave taken by him from the V goveininent job. 8. In the matter of Himanchal Road Transport Corporation (supra) considering the compensation towards loss of leave, it has been held that the claimant is entitled for compensation for the loss of eight months as the claimant would have taken his leave at his pleasure and could have encahsed his leave at the time of retirement, had he not met with accident. 9. In the matter of Udayram Vs. Mohd. Usman and others (supra) similar law has been laid down by the High Court of MP. that the injured should be compensated for the period for which he had to take leave from his duty on account of injuries as leave is encashahle. 10. In the instant case, as already pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he remained on leave because of injuries sustained by him on medical ground and as such, he has failed to prove this fact by adducing best evidence in his possession. However, considering the fact that the appellant sustained bodily injuries and was referred to District Hospital, B£a1spur and I l‘ u ’dmmafim“, h€ pamained 011 lCaVe, ancis ofjustice would be Sarxmd if a fnrther sum of Rs. 12,000] — is award€c1 as additional campansation,to 'tha appaiant under tha abovs h6ad. 11. So far as i116 fmding of tha Tribulxal exoneratmg t11€ respondent No‘3jinsuranes company from the liability of $atisfying th€ awaHl is concmned, in tha co1111€ct6d matters Le. M.A.No‘ 44‘2f2004 55 M.A.N04 420f2004 arising out of the sauna accidem, it has ah‘eady bEEn hgld‘ by this Court that th€ vehicle in quastion, which has the capatrity of nine pa$s<ingers, was illsured with mspondcnt No3 aild a3 1361‘ palicy conditions, the insurance company haS undertaken to indemnify the insured towards liabiiity to third. partiess including the occupants of the Vehicle. From the evidence available on record of the present appeal also, the claimant has denied that he paid any amount towards fare and therefore, it cannot be said that ihe vehicle was being used by the owner for hile requirements. The finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle and insured for private purposes Whereas the same was being used as a taxi and fare was charged from the passengers including the claimant, is not borne out from the evidence available on record. 12. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. hnpugned awarrl is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.8,0GO{- the appellant/clahnant is entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.20,000] with interest at the rate of 9% per annuin from the date of application, which shall be payable by non—applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to the appellant] Claimant. iW “sw— \‘N ,Dhirendra Mishra ,,,,,,:[Eggfw a n>1 > 35 ,