•:SS.f;:.':.:P -.••"^-L'^.-L^'-I^,^^,^^ lli B•I WsSfV IBKII ;^Ej "5; '•^:'.^.'^ •^'•'-i:fel IN THE HON'BLE HIGHJIOURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BU.ASPUR IVI.A.(C)NO.- f2^g /20^'osvistoo ® §1 APPELLANT :- BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, JAGDALPUR, TEH. JAGDALPUR DISTRICT BASTAR (C.G.) (INSUSANCE COMPANY) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- 1. ROOPDHAR SINGH MAURYA S/0 LATE KALJUKH,AGEABOUT 55 YRS., 2. LACHHAN DEYEE W/0 ROOPDHAR ^-^J^'! *........,» SINGH MAURYA, AGEABOUT 50 YEARS, •B^Shn..^C-IA^'- KU. GAYATRI D/0 ROOPDHAR SINGH .'^^).fS}.f-V-— MAURVA, AGE ABOUT 16 YEARS, ALL CASTE BHATRA, RESIDENT KUMHARAWAND VILLAGE-MOOLI THANA BASTAR CHOWKI, POST BARDA, TEHSIL JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT BASTAR (C.G.) (RESPONDENTS N0.- 3, MINOR THROUGH N^TURAL GUARDIAN FATHER ROOPDHAR SINGH MAURYA, RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 4. SANTOSH KUMAR KASHYAP S/0 LATE SOMARU RAM KASHYAP, CASTE MAHRA, AGE 24 Y^ARS, RESIDENT SOSANPAL, THANA PARPA DISTRICT ' BASTAR(C.G.) 5. MOHAN RAM MAHRA S/0 LATE LAKHURAM AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, CASTE MAHRA RESIDENT NEGIGUDA, DHAT PADMUR PO. JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT BASTAR (VEHICLE OWNER) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 -?y, : APPEALVALUED Rs. 5,43,OOQ/- (APPEALBYINSIIRANCE) COMPENSATION CLAIMED BEFORE TMBUNALRs. 11,40,500/- AWARDED AMOUNT BY TRIBUNALRs. 5,43,000/- <3— HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BItASPUR DB: HON'BLBI.M. QUDDUSI fis HON'BLB PRASHANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ M. A (Cl. No. 1228 OF 2010 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICyBS ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Per 1.M. OUDDU8I. J ORRER(ORAL1 (24.03.2011) (1} This appeal has been filcd by the iasiirance Conipany against the impugned award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the III Additional Motor Accident Claim.s Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur, ia Claim Case No. 16/2009. (2) Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of ftie claunaut are titiat on 29.04.2008 deceased Kamlesh "Mauiya, after attendiag xnarriage cereinony in Raykot,was retummg on inotorcyele aloDLgwittt his coUeagues Amit and Mukesh. Mukeshwas driviug fhe vehicle whereas Kamleshwas sittuig as piUion rider. At fhat tiine, one Coiamander Jeep bearing Regn.No.lS-ZT/0198 which was beiag driven by non- appUcaat No.l at the wrong side ia a rash and negUgent inaaner dashed the inotorcycle froni opposite direction as a result of which, Kanilesh sustaiued grieyous uiji.tries on left side of the chest and on hip joiuts and died during fhe course of tTeatment. At the tuiie ofaccident, the deceased was aged about 27 years old. He had appeared in the jnterview for the post of Agricultural Extension OflBcer !..,+—-, APPELLANT Brauch Mauager, The Oriental Insurance Coinpaay Limited Vs. RBSPONDENT8 Roopdhar Siagh Mauiya and ofhers carryiag the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/- per inonth and after tus deafh the appointaient brder was issued. The claimaats beiag dependents/legal representatives have filed claim petition for the award of compensation to fhe tune of Rs.ll ,40,500/ - on vanous heads. v 3. The leamed Claims Tribunal has tield that non-appUcant No.l who was driving the offending Jeep iu a rash and negUgent ihanner went on wrong side aad dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, Kamlesh died aad at the time of accident, ftiere was no breach of conditions of iasurance poUcy. The Tribtuial has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.5,43,000/- which the clamiants are entiUed to receive from. fhe appeUaat iasurance compaay. 4. Learaed couusel for fhe appeUaat luamly raises two fold contention with regard to contributoiy negligeuce on fhe part offhe driver ofthe inotorbike and the quaatum fixed by fhe Tribunal. 5. With regard to fhe contributory negligence, we have perused the recoirls ofthe Tribunal. Amit Thakur (A.W.2) has stated ia his evidence that Mukesh was driviag the Motorcycle whereas he and deceased Kamlesh were sitting as pUlion riders. He has farther stated that the driver ofthe offindiug Jeep who was driviag ia a rash an.d negUgent inanner went ou wrong side offhe road uear Metawada Culvert and dashed the xaotorcycle. The fact ofwrong side con-oborates fiioia the site luap prepared by the PoUce. He has deiued iu his cross examination that the motorcyclc was at a speed. This witaess has further stated tbat the zaotorGycle has gone to quite lefit side of tfae road that is proper side but the Jeep has dashed the niotorcycle comiag fix>in wrong side. The version 6f this witness remamed uiu-efuted as no witaess on befaalf of the non-applicants was examiaed ia rebuttal. The police have also conducted iavest^ation and on tbe basis of Dedhati Nalishi, F.I.R., site niap, postaiorteiu report, Supardnajriaorder, final report ete., fhey came to conelusion fhat respondenf N6.4 Santosh Kuinarwas drivtag the Jeep ia a rash and negligeat maaner aad dashed the motorcvcle. "» ys !.;3 -loj -/-OOOS'sa pire g^B^sa jo SSOT joj -/000'S'sy ;"ono%B PUB 3AOI JO S80i[ 10} -/OOOS"sy psttiBJS ssq iBunqu^ stp 'snp saprsag •-/ooO'SZ'S'sa SB ^no 'paipoA SBA Aoaspaadap jo ssoi ^o^ aip 'T:^ j3T[dopim Sui^ddB uo 'TT Jandppiin: 3TipCiddB iii ^oauoo SBM iBunquj, atp. 'soaaH 'aiqBoiiddB apBui uaaq 3ABq pinoqs T I -tSRdTtin1"1 'TZI 30S (600Z) TII ps-^iodai (ofr ®iBd)jawouo pwo uoffo.todto^ yjoSsuoJj, fW9C[ -a>- {'Vus) wuua/i wl.ms ai IISATS SIBOS jaiiditinm aip oi. 8iiipxoooB 'Mojaiaqj, •33 o^iSjo dncuS aSB 31^ uixpiAj[Bj ATp pTre s-reaA es piregs aaaAqaq ai S3TII03 qoiqAjo a8Ki3AB 3W 'OS pae sg ai3A s^uaisd siq jo saSe aqj, •paiaptsaoo sq QI. si s^naied jo 38® aip. 's^HBnitBio 8ui3q sj.aaiBt^ aip ^evy. AB[ pap^as i[3A ST 1J •-/000'8l7'sy SB Atiapnadap jo ssoi {entrctB atp pTre -/O00't''sa SB ^ouapuadap jo ssoi ^ppuoui sc[f. fno paqjoai SBq pTie sasusdxa icaosjad spieMO^ j[Bq-3no pa^onpap Xpqgu sBq tBiinquj, aq^ 'aiojaxaqj, •easttadxa 8utAi[ pite ^aosjad spreAO^ patonpap aq o^ seq ^[eq-auo) % 'jopqoBq SBA psSBaoap aip aouis "ql.Houi jad -/0008'sy SB pasBaoap jo 311100111 3TR U35[Kt SBq IBUTiqujt, 31R J3A3AOH '3At[B a33q 3q pBT[ ipuoui jad -/ots'86'sy ^a8 OSTB ppioA pasBaoap stp 'qoiqA o^ SuipioooB 'py jBTcny TrepitBqo ^piiieu sfeptpwao jBipms B o^ payiBiS 3{Bos Aed pastAaj 3ttt ei qoiqM gfd-xg^aamnoop aip OSIB SB 0009-OOT-OOOfr'sy jo sieoe fed aq^ uo jaasffQ aoisaapcg laintinouSv IB.my SB pataioddB SBM pasBaoap sqt AqajaqA jridtBy 'qjegsp^Bqqo 'am^piouSvjo atBio^oajTQ aip .itq paiissi gOOESO'ZO ps^Bp J3p.to ^aaTEri.uioddB 3tp TIO paeeq SBq leim.quj, aip 'uitquenl) 310 o^ pjteSai qi.iA^ •paioafoj si pTie sffBf aouaSifSavc Aio^nqu^Ttoo STiiprEgai iiopiia^Tioo aqi 'aiojajaqj, -apis 8uoLU& 01. aaoS aAsq ^ott ppioA dssp aq^jo jaAup aq^ji ^aappoB jiirBjo uopsanl) OTI aq ppiOA aiaqj, -^uapiooB psfffcamoa ptte apis SaciiM o^ anog pBq daap aip jo j3AUp 3lp ^Bq} p3qsi[qKt83 SI ^T '3AOqB 3q^ JO A13TA UI •3pts jadojd ST v3Ty. aprs -Q3[ wo SinoS SBM qoiqM aio^ojo^oTn: aiR jo jsAUp jo linsj AIIB SBM s.iaq^ pire jaaaBm ^aaSiiSair p08 qsKI B III gltIAUp ^OU 8BA •^•ON ^Hapaodsaj fBTf^ pres aq IOTIIIBO i.l 'aiojaiaqj, •p3Tp qeaiiTire^ 'qoiqAjo ^pisa B SB 8. funeral expenses whlch in atl coines to Rs. 15,000/- under the ofher heads. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a tolal Compeusation ofRs.5,43,000/-(Rs.5,28,000 + 15,000) wifh iuterest @ 6% per annum, which in our opmion is not excessive. Therefore, fhe contention of leamed counsel regarding quaatum. also fails. In view what has been dMcussed above, fhere is no force in. this appeal. The appeal fails aad is disinissed. Siace flie Tribunal has rightly awarded fhe com.pensation, fhe cross objectious filed by the claimants are also dismissed. No order as tojcosts. 1>^ Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge