livision Ben^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.No...(a^. OF 2006 fAPPEAL-VALUED AT Rs 2.43..082/-W-- Sintl& APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLESACT. 1988. ^' APPELANT .^STON- APPLICANT N0.2) ^l? TheNew India Assurance ^ Company Limited, Near JhankarTalkies, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar(C.G.),through ^W\/y its-Divisional manager, p? ^ /..*^* Divisional-Office, IInd floor, Shriram Trade Centre, in front of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.). x^ y RESPONDENTS ^. ^APPUCANT ) VERSUS Smt. Bhedo Bai w/0 Late Andharu Ram, aged - 45 years, R/O-Vill.- Bhandar Shivani Tahsil- Kondagaon,- Disst. Bastar (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT ^NO.l) :2. Umesh Singh S/0- Ajay Singh, Occupation- owner and driver, R/0-Village Bhandar Shivani, Tahsil- Kondagaon Dlsst. Bastar (C.G.) XI-HC-78 ^? +ll<4^l sh+lich 3^T ^i^i^i^, ^TH^JI(O, [®<<ni^y< ri^.^..A...Cl.<i..3.6.^... ^ll^l ^5<cb (llc<ITi<s<^) W^T^Tf^Tt^ cT^TW^^fT^ ) ^<TTW^rf?cT3TT^T . 20.02.2007 Appellant by Shri Dashrath <=hi^I<yt41-i ^i^QiT^:tel:A<f^<-<-i< ^3Tf^T3:n^T Supta, learned counsel. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed aga|nst the award dated 28.04.2006 passed ^ by the 4"' AdditionaJ Motor Accjidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. |4 of 2005 whereby compensation of date of application till recovery wa^ Rs.2,43,882SSOO along with intere^t at the rate of 6% per annum from the awarded. In this appeal, it is not dispi(ted that Andharuram who was traveding in the ill-fated Matador No.C.G.17/^/0169 on 26.07.2004 died as a result of accident. Admittedly, the aforesaijd Matador was insured by the appellant on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the ap^ellant has assailed the impugned award i^ only on the following grounds in thi|s appeal: A) The first inform^tion report lodged by one Pravin Singh deariy shows th^t 15 to 20 passengers were being carried in the Matadolr at the time of accident which satisfactorily proves br^ach of policy, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to p|ay compensation. B) It was also urge^t that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-third from the monttily income of t(ie deceased towards personal expenses because chjldren of the deceased were not claimante in this appea|. No other ground|was urged. Having heard learned coun^el for the appellant, 1 have perused the record of the Claim Case No. 54 o F 2005. The Claimant-Bhedo Bai, widow KB XI-HC-78 3^T ^l^lc^^, ^Tf1^Jl(o, Rldiy^i ^^ ...^\^.^.o'3(.^/ ^l+ldl sb^lcb -^- • • - *'- * ^ ^ •/* * • ^pj- 200 ^ 311^1 ^IKch ('^(i^sl^) ^n^T^Tf^ri^ cT^TT^TT^T^m? ^llllllfc -^ ^<TT^K^rfN'3:n^T —2^— of the deceased examined herselfl an eye witness. Bhedo Bai testifi< Matador as a Coolie. In cross-ex^ learned counset for the Insurer tha< as a Coolie. It is also pertinent to learned counsel for the Insurer to witness examined by the Claimar travetling as passengere in the Ma^ador Officer Mr. M.A. Jos^h Shaili NJ the risk of three Coolies was covet deceased was travelling as a Coo| pay compensation. No independ|ent Insurer to show that the deceasedl in the Matador and not as a Coolfe. lodged by Pravin Singh is concerr|ed. grocery shop and had reached th« the accident and had lodged the F|. made in the F.t.R. by itself could Bhedo Bai and Ramesh Lat Diw^n the learned counsel for the appellc The conclusion arrived at of the impugned award that the d^ only in 25 days in a month is who| earn his livelihood everyday so as| cannot afford to sit idle for five dak <^i^?<n41-i ^i^<-iT^tel^t^T^K ^^rf^R'^TT^T |as also one Ramesh Lat Diwan A.W.2, ijd that her husband was traveliing in the ^mination, it was also suggested by the Andharuram used to earn his livelihood |note that no question was asked by the Ramesh Lal Diwan A.W.2, the sole eye- jit to show that 15 to 20 persons were r. As against this, the Administrative ^V.1 admitted in cross-examination that M under the insurance policy and if the (ie, the Insurance-Company was liable to evidence was led by the appellant- |was travelling as a gratuitous passenger fe. So far as the first jnformation report 1, he was a total stranger and owned a place of occurrence after hearing about I.R. thereafter. Therefore, the statement wt be sufRcient to rebut the testimony of A.W.2. The first contention raised by int musttherefore fail. >y the tearned M.A.C.T. in paragraph 17 ceased would have earned his livelihood ly erroneous. A daily bread eamer has to to earn a square meal for the family. He fs in month. The learned M.A.C.T. ought 9. tf 1 XI-HC-78 3^T ^I^K-I^, ^Tf1^jl(o, fcl^iy^ ^l^^lsb^leb ^T 200 3ll^| <45|ch ('i0!^^) W^T^Tf^TT^ cCT'3TR^T5h^lc=h )a \< ' \, [w^- ^<TTW^f?cT3Tf^T ^. *3 w^ to have assessed the depender Rs.85/- by 30 (85 X 30). In thi^ awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. the deduction of one-third from towards personal expenses is with. The expenses of the familyl fold; personal expenses of the and expenses towards establishi^ would be contributing two thirds for maintenance of household as Bai. Deduction of one-third fronh towards his personal expenses therefore, wholly justified. In this of the learned counsel for the app^llant also fails Consequently, M.C.P.No. dismjssed. Certified copy as per rules. 4)I^Id41-l W^^fWt^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T r|cy by multiplying the daily income of view of the matter, the compensation |is already on the l<wer side. So far as |the monthly income of the deceased cohcemed, the same could not be faulted in the set up of the claimant are three- h^sband, personal expenses of the widow ^g the household. Thus, the deceased ^f his monthty income towards expenses ^lso the expenses of the claimant-Bhedo the monthly income of the deceased |to assess the monthly dependency is, ^iew of the matter, the second contention As a result, this appeal b^ing devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission.. 312 of 2007 for stay also stands Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judgc P.T.O. ^ t l. \>