•--^.. Ste''""^ ^®^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma ^ Miscellaneous Appeal No.725 of 2003 Sadhan Jain and others versus Baharin Bai and others ORDER ^^& Postfor ^-07-2011 Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge ^^}^, ^'i' /!^\ r tssi'^ i 1 ^'^^&^ 1 i... V-.^J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Miscellaneous Appeal No. 725/2003 APPELLANTS !^. ResDondents 1. 2. Vs. Present: Sadhan Jain, Widow of Rajesh Kumar Jain, aged about 35 years, Pooja Jain D/o. Rajesh Kumar Jain, aged about 14 years, through her natural gvardian Sadhana Jain, Widow of Rajesh Kumar Jain, aged about 35 years. Jaishri D/o. Rajesh Kumar Jain, aged about 11 years, through her naturat guardian Sadhana Jain, Widow of Rajesh Kumar Jain. All residents of MIG-15, Padmanabhpur, Distt. Durg (CG) Baharin Bai Wd/o Dukham Singh Verma, aged about 49 years. Dwarka Singh S/o. Dukham Singh Verma, aged about 29 years, Chovan Singh, S/o. Dukham Singh Verma, aged about 24 years. All respondents 1 to 3 are R/o. Village Karchua, Tahsil Bemetara, Dist. Durg (CG) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Through Branch Manager, Post Box No.51, Malviya Nagar, Distt. Durg (CG), Savitri, W/o. Ratanlal Verma, aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Ghorbhatti, Tahsil Kharora, Distt. Raipur (CG) Naresh,. S/o. Ramcharan Satnami, aged about 30 years, R/o. Village Lalpur (Chhote) Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (CG) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehides^ct Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Shri Surya Kant Mishra, counsel for respondent No.4. None for other respondents. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ^3"^ ^ .'••^•:^^.'"-'.^ ''•'\ ^ ORDER (Passedon ^SJuly, 2011.) The appeal arises out of the award dated 30 June, 2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, B6metara, Distt. Durg in ClaimCase No.49/2002. 2. Case of the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 is that on 4 July, 2002, an accident took place in which deceased Dukham Smgh died. Legal representatives of Dukham Singh, i.e., respondents 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on the ground that the offending vehicle Hero hlonda Splendor was being driven in a --^ rash and negligence manner by Naresh (respondent No.6), as a result of which, Dukham Singh sustained injuries and died. Dukham Singh was the main earning member in the family and he was healthy. Thedeceased was working as a farmer and also working as a carpenter and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month from agricultural work and Rs.3000/- from carpentry. It is stated that Rs.15,000/- were spent towards his medical expenses. Legal representatives of deceased Dukham Singh claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,87,000/-. 3. The appellant Rajesh Kumar Jain - owner of the offending motor cycle pleaded before the Tribunal that the accident was not occurred by the motor cycle belonging to him and the same was not driven by respondent No.6 Naresh. The defence of resppndent No.4/lnsurance Company before the Tribunal was that the vehicle in question was not insured with it and at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid IS^^BI \^t^iii^:- ^ o ^•1. and effective licence to drive the vehicle in question, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment ofcompensation. 4. Learned Tribunal afterframing issues, recorded evidence ofthe parties and thereafter passed the impugned award. 5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who ,are legal representatives of the deceased appellant, submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. The learned Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of thecompensation. The offending vehicle was ^duly insured with the insurance company which is duly prpved by the documents Ex-P/11 and Ex-D/1. The impugned award is, thus, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No.4/lnsuranceCompany opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The learned Tribunal has held that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by driver Naresh, the accident took place in which Dukham Singh sustained injuries and died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and accordingly, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company ofthe liability to satisfy the award and fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the appellant and respondent No.6. ai^SK^&^^ •SMSS^S^^ n ^ -^ '/ ^•' iWW^i^'''^^'^ K, .v-y ^s^ The learned Tribunal assessed theloss of annual dependency tothe tune of Rs.12,240/- and appliedmultiplier of5. 8. In the impugned award, in para 9 and 10, the Tribunal has observed that the appellant was not able to prove that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 9. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned couhsel for the appellants drawing attention of this Court to a document Ex.P-11, which is policy schedule issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and a document Ex.D-1, whichis sales-invoice issued by Jai Motors, submitted that number of engine iOf Hero Honda Splendor mentioned in Ex.P-11 is 31290 and number of engine of the said vehiclementioned in Ex.D-1 is 31210, but chasis number of the said vehicle mentioned in both the documents is common and, therefore, it is evident that it was none other than but the offending vehicle (Hero Honda Splendor) itself was insured with respondent No.4/0riental fnsurance Company Limited, but the learned Tribunal has not paid attention towards this aspect. t 10. It was for the appellanVowner of the offending vehicle to establish that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.4/insurance company at the time of accident. 11. I have perused the impugned award with utmost circumspection. In paragraph 10 of the impugned award, it has been observed that the sales- invoice (Ex.D-1) does not bear signature of the non-applicant's witness. Learned Tribunal has held that it cannot arrive at a finding on the basis of the •::.^?tI'^wes@p%^n'T.<^^^';s^^ :^'~ :..^'-?-)" ^-... document Ex.D-1 that the number of engine of Hero Honda Splendor mentioned in the document Ex.P-1 1 is similar to the number mentioned in the document Ex.D-1. l have perused both the documents Ex.P-11 and Ex.D-1 as also the statement of NAW-2 Deepak. 1 am of the view that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal with regard to insurance of the offending vehicle is finding of fact and cannot be interfered with. Since the offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.4/insurance company, therefore, respondent No.4/insurance company is not liable to satisfy the impugned award. Exoneration of respondent No-4/insurance company from liability to pay compensation by the learned Tribunal is legal and does not warrant interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above, l am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal against the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle is finding of fact and is recorded on the strength of legal admissible evidence. The award does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. No interference of this Court is called for in the impugned award. 13. In the result, the appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————--~ Sd/- '^•- R.S.Sharma Judge Bini/Gopal —^^ ?S'?:-S==3-.®".-;%T-£;:5??7 -7."S.-:®%^BS??.':'