i.-^ ^ IN TF-IE I-ttGH CCURT OF CI4I-IATTIS@^H AT BILASPUR \^^L )'^ ^r A^^^ieall{cL,__Zt^^PX..2Q0.3, Q O B AOPELL^T ^^r^pTrc^jT N0.3. RESPONDENTS ^^>^ ^9^ ^\%? ^y ^y ^•^^'" S ^.United India Insurance CompanyL.td, ^ throught- The Branch Manager Branch Near Ham Mandir Anbikapur Sarguja (C.G.) • V E,R S U_,S. s 1» Tilmet Bai v4.fe of Shyamlal, aged-27 years, Resident of Village" Ketka, Thana & Tahsil Surajpur, District-Sarguj a (C»G») — Claimant — .,2, Anil Kumar Goyal son of Shri ^-^ S<,C,:Goyal, caste- ^grawal (M/s Balaji Traders) Resident of Kharsiya Hoad,' -Ambikapur Distr&ct-Sarguja (C.G.). 3,: Mukhtar Musain son of Shri M:.azid Miya, c a s-fce Mu s alman y Occup ation- Driyer, Resident of "-Babhroli (ALlahabad) District- Mlahabad, (U »?<»:), Present Address -through Anll Ku mar Goyal, (M/ s Bal aji Trader- s) Kharsiya Ro ad, Anbik apur District-Sar-guja (C*G.), 'Non..^EJJ.^an£j^o.J,.8_2 ^2El^.SJNDER^SECTlo!i.-i73^OTJio?a^^^ ^S-^^^^:^j:^^\f:^^^^"^^^~w^7i^^^^ ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. 719 Of 2003 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0.3 RESPONDENTS United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Tilmaet Bai and others. DB:- HON»BLESHM N.K. AGARWAL HON»BLESHRI R.L.JHANWAR. JJ PRESENT:- Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for respondents 2 85 3. ORAL ORDER (16.11.2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. Heard finally. 2. This is insyrer's appesl againstthe award dated 08.01.2002 passed in Claim Case No.63/2002 by 5th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Surajpur, Dist. Surguja whereby and whereunder the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,09,000/- ih favour of the claimant/respQndent No.l and against the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle and fastened the liability on the, .appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of conipensation to the claimant. 3. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 24.06.2001 atabout 4.00 p.m. when Shyamlal, husband of the respondent No.l/claimant was ori His way to District Hospital, Ambikapur, all of sudden, truckbearing No.M.P.27 B 3390, beingdriven by its driver / respondent No.3 rashly and negligently, dashed Shyamlal, due to which, Shyamlal died on the spot. u^ ^..^::.^ 1 '^'^^' :1•/'- te "fe-^.^ '^s^' 4. The claimant being wife of the deceased Shyamlal filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It was pleaded therein that at-the time of acctdent, the deceasedShyamlal was aged 30 years. He was working as Rajmistri ond was also doing agricultural works. He was earning Rs.5000/- per month; 5. Per contra, respondents 4 herein and the appellant insurance company denied the pleadings of the claim petition by filing their written statements respectively. 6. All the parties led their evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, held that the driver ofthe said truck was negligent in driving the saidoffendmg truck and Shyamlal died due to such negligent driving of respondentNo.3. 8. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal for the appellant, assailed the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, the driver ofthe offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and despite the above fact the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liabilily on the appellant / insurance company. Secondly, fhe learned CIaims Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and the award'of funeral expenses is also on higher side. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for re3pondents No.2 & 3 supported the impugned award. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and record of theClaims Tribunal. 11. So far as the first^ ground raised by the appellant is concerned, the appellant did not lead any evidence showing that ^. /•'^: ^H^ s^>4< ^ driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is trite law that it is for the appellant / insurance company to prove the defence taken by it in which the appellant/ insurance company utterly failed, and therefore, the first ground raised by the appellant is sans substance and is rejected. So far as second ground is concerned, we have perused the evidence adduced by the claimant / respondent No.l. A.W. 1 Tilmaet Bai has deposed that her husband was Rajmistri and was earning Rs.5000/- per month and Rs.150/- per day. The learned Tribunal assuming it excessive has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, which, in our considered opinion, is just and reasonable. Although the amount awarded on account of funeral expenses is Rs.20,OQO/- is excessiy.e, but am.QVin!t<,.g,vyar4ed,A.iR4er ^the IQSS pf consortium i.e. Rs.SQQO/- is on lower side. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that the widow is ofyoung age of 29 years, the amount awarded under loss of consortium should have been Rs.20,000/-. Ifit is held that Rs.20,000/- should have been awarded on the head loss pf consortium, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of estate, then it will be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable award and calls for no interference. 13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge