CORAM 'tOIU HiGH COURT OF JUDECATURE CHHATTSSGARH ESEON ILA; .R. DESHMI "isc. Apoea! No.753 OF ^ Appeiiant: (insureri "^'-ii'iSL^Sui r^e'E^'^e- t T) (ClaimantsS National insurancs Company Limited, Through Assistant Manager, Nationai Insurance Companv Limited, B-1, Taha Compiex, ist Fioor, Ring Road, Priyadarehini Nasar. Biiesour, (Chhattlsaarh). v^r??! ??; ta/t ^tfl^s ? 7. Saiga Das, S/o.j' Shri Sadhu Das, aged about 46 years, Rf'o. Ganjpara, Near Bs.ndha TaaSab. Durc. 1 33!^b, Chhattlsgarh. Vinay Gupta, S/o. Shri BhaiyaSa! Qupta, aged about 34 years, resident of Mouiipara, Near iress Bha*.van, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Jawahar, S/o. Shri Satanand, aged about 50 years Chandar Bai, W./o. Ja'A'ahar, aged w Ma.- ihar, about13 years Ku. Sundar, D/o. Jawahar, aged about11 years Ku. Sa'nodara, D/o. Jawahar, aged about OS years Durgesh S/o. Jawahar, aged about 03 ysars Respondent No.5 to 8 being Minors ars represented through Father respondent 3. Respondent No.3 to 8 Residents of Village Muru, Tahsi! Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Presently at Chantidlh, BiSaspur ^f.\3.} Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawa!, learned counsei for the appellant. -i 'assed on 26 The fol'owlng ora! order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ. !n this appeai preferred by the insurance Company, t-A'o contentions are urged by the learned standing counsej. They are, (i) that the MACT is not justified In taking the annua! incoms of the decessed at P.s. 20,000./- and (ii) that the poiicy Issued by the Insurance Company does not cover the risk of the piliion rider. •2. We do "ot find any rnerit in both the contentions. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years. !t has come in the evidence of the claimants that the decsased was v/orking in a cycie shop in viilage Muru. The accla'ent took p!ace on 05.10.2005. A young rnan like the deceased earnEng early income of Rs.20,000/- -which works out ta be Rs.1,667/- per month, particu'iariy, working in a cycle shop could riOt be regarded as excessive or incredibie. As reaards the second contention, it needs to be "oticed thst the Snsurance Company has utteriy Taiied to igy the factual matrix/oieadins to sustain the contentio". !n the written statemsnt fited by the 'nsurance Company, even according to the tearned stand'ng counsel for the Snsurance Company, no specific pEea to the effect that the po'icy issusd by the Insurance Company did not cover the risk of the piltion rider, is taken. !n ths absence of such piea as wei! as proof, the sscond contention urged by t'ne learned standing counsei is required to 'oe ij')fi^l?sf^ nn3v? frs h& r^.!c>-T.t^"i Th?^ a^ri-aiflS i<; H-ct^/firl tf r'^ftirSf anrl it 5' '•\^, Vi }iV LU '^•'SS i 53jK:L/ii^5'iK. I i ]S ii3^p;S£ti a^ U^Wiy Ui IH'yHi, £?ijy il, i'' ^i^f^.^T^'a ^ y^f~^ i\.f f^t ITk VFn ^d^. ®^S;\j^as|3ytVQiSiiTllisSSQ. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Chief Justice y