\- Insurer IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCSeARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL{C) N0. l^H^ OF 2010 Bajaj Allianz Seneral Jnsurance Company Limited, Officeat Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur Versus r ' Respondents 01. .^ .• \v& ^y^02 ^^/^ ^/7 ^W 03 ^<\ •^t.'' ^"Jr ^ <fJ? 05 <' ^ HR 47/8239 07 Smt. Dairsi Vishwkarma W/o iate Rakesh Vishwkarma Aged about 25 years Chatresh Kumar Vishwkarma S/o late Rakesh Vi'shwkarma Aged about 04 years Surykant Vishwkarma S/o late Rakesh Vishwkarma Aged about 10 Months Khemraj Vishwkarms S/o Late Ramdoyal Vishwkarma Aged about 56 Years. Smt. Droupati Vishwkarma W/o Khemraj yishwkarma Aged about 52 Years. (Respondent No. 2 and 3 are through ther natural Sardian Mother Smt. baini Vishwkarma W/o late Rakesh Vishwkarma) Al! Respondent are R/o Vi!lage Viilage Porsoda P.S. and Th. Balod Di'strict - Durg.C.G. Tara Singh Yadav S/o Jagdish Singh Yadav Aged about 52 Years R/o Village Bhasouli P.S. Bhasouli. District Patna Bihor Presently at Village Chanderi P.S. Simga bistrict Raipur C.6. Babula! Rajak S/o Hiralai Rajak Aged about 28 years R/o Khatghora Road t)ipka P.S. Deepka District -Korba C.&. MISC. APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR^/.@-IICL_ESACT^ A6AINST TUE ORDER/AWARD "&ATED 28.0.8.2010 PASSED IN C.T. 158/2009'By'LEARNED UPPER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS_TRIBUNAL • (FTC) BALOD &ISTRICT&UR6 (C6) PRESIDEt) OVER BY SHRI R.S. SAI. ^ Appeal vaiued at Rs. 13,83,( Affixed Court fee at Rs. 15/- ^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'bleShriJusticel.lVI.Quddusi and Hon'bleShri Justice PrashantKumarMishra Appellant IVIiscellaneous ADpeal (C.) No.124^of2010 BajajAllianz General Insurance Company Limited versus ReSDondents Smt. Daini Vishwkarma and others Present: Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appellant. ShriAvinash ChanctSahu, counselfQrrespondents:No.1 to 5. Nohe for other respondents. MiscellaneQys Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (PassedQn25thApril,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi.J.: Meard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 28-8-2010 passed by the Additional MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Balod, District Durg in Claim CaseNo. 158/2000 insofar as the impugned award relates to quantum partonly. 3. With regard to challenge in question, the appellant/insuranGe company has got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'). 4. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date ofaccident, i.e., 7-1-2009, deceased Rakesh Vishwakarma :;'^ ^ A alongwith his father, brother and other persons were comingfrom Village Tuman to Village Parspda in a jeep. At about 8 A.M., the deceased came out of the jeep near the culvert over Village Melnadih Kharoon River and stood up on the side of the road on his left side to discharge urine. Atthat time, a Truck-Trailer bearing registration No.HR 47 8239, being driven by non-claimant No.1 Tarasingh Yadav rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased died on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. The claimants.i.e., Wife, sons, father and mother ofthe deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 5 . The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,83,000/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to satfsfy the award on the non-claimants jointly or severally. 6. We have perused record ofthe Claims Tribunal and found that the deceased was a Secretary in a registered society, namely, Panchsheel Bal Kalyan Samiti, which was running an educational ? institution, namely, Saraswati Gyandeep Vidyalaya, at different places. The educational institution Saraswati Gyandeep Vidyalaya was being run at the places Gullu, Arang and Samoda. The deceased had taken buildings on rent by making agreements in writing with the landlords. There are five such agreements which have been made exhibits as Ex.P-21, P-22, P-23, P-24 and P-25. It has come on record vide Ex.P-26 that the deceased was running/looking after the educational institution at Samoda and that B •auop usaq lousAeq assqi ||E 'tng '[eunqui SLUIBIO eqi Aq peuoiULuns useq 8Aek| OS|B p|nOL|s stunoooej.o s^ooq }ueA9|ej eq} pue pJE6ej (eqt ui p3MO||E uesq SAeq p|noL|S sssssufiM pue uoitejapisuoo 0(U! ue^e} uesq 9Aeq OS|B p|noqs J.SUBLU }eqi 'AJB]BS BuiysB pue Ataioos aqt 01 Ajetsjoeg E SEM pesesoep sqi ji pue ouop uesq iou SBM ieq} }nq 'pessesse ueBq eAeq pinoqs peseeoep 94} ^o eiuooui eqt 'A|UQ eLues eqt Ouiuiepeose JSUB pue eeyiLULUoo Aue Aq jo peseeoap OL)} Aq jo Aieioos aq} Aq peAiegaj 6ui3q SBM uoi)n}!}SU! eq} ^o SLUOOUI aqf jeqfeqM 6} SB |eunqui SLUIBIO 941 -10^ U011BUILUJ819P ? uoiisanb B SBM )| 'jedojd tou SBM 'qiuoiu jsd -/ooO'OI-'sy se passesse ueaq seq aLuooui siq qoi^M Aq 'poqiSLU eqi 'Atioedeo JSLDO Aue ui JQ Aiapos eqt ^o ^ie^ajoes SB sq iqBjai 'suo!}ni!tsu! si|t p euo jeye 6uD|oo| SBM poseeoop SL|I pue AISIOOS aqi Aq unj 6uieq 8J9M suoitntitsui 9L|i se inq 'jeaA jed -/000'OZ'l'sy ''s'! 'MtuOLU jad -/OOO'Ol-'sy SB pssesosp eqi io 9LU03U! eqi psssesse SEL| leunquisiuieio sqi 'pesesoepeLi} Aq uo!}nt!tsu! eqi p 6uiuunj p pe^ 941 uoiiBjepisuoo QtU! Bui^ei 's •eieoyiyso AJB|BS Aue Buiidaooe jo uoiisenb OUSBM sjeqi'ejopjaq} 'pue uoiiniitsui leuoiieonps 8qt6u!uunj sem iiesuiiLi paseeoep sqtteq} punojB 94} uo eiues sqt MO||e iou pip ]eunqui SLUIBIQ sqttnq 'OIOZ-9-81. uo uoiteoiidde ue qtj paseaoep sq^ p aieoyipeo Aje|es E p9|y |eunqui SLUIBIO 9L|i sjo^eq s}UBLU!B|o aq^ jo^ Suuesdde lesunoo psujee-i •^ •ZZ-d'X3 si L|O!MM '600Z-6-L p81Bpjei(e| SIL| epiA jndiey 'ue^iqpveqs^jqs B|!Z S4t Aq pesop eqoi peuiaijsd SBM yoiqM 'peseeoep 9L|} ^o qieap 01 enp pssop SBM uoiiniitsui £ ^3?-^ ,^s'~^ ^ . • "-'. Y %,..y/ .^- 1 ^' 9. Side by side, we cannot accept the contention oflearned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company that method of calculating the income of the deceased is not proper, therefore, notional income of the deceased should have been taken, i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month, which we treat foran unskilled labourer. That is not possible in this case in the circumstances. 10. It has been provided in Rule226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. Further, we cannot ignore the provisions of Section 168 of theAct, which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (ineluding the insurer)an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may makean award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be ' just. However, the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry in the mannerindicated above. 11. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumarand another, 2010 (12) Scale 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 of the report thus (only relevant portion is extracted below): ^^3ta^^@ie&^S2S3es^BcyiS seq 40!L|M 'tunoiue 341 •>|oeq }uas eq |eunqui suiieio sq}? pjooey •qieep SIL| sjo^eq psse93ep eq} jo SLUOQUI |en)3B eq) euiiuje^sp O) ssodjnd )BL|I jo^ sesssu^M Ajesseoeu pue Atsioos sq} LUOJJ pjooej tUBA9|9j eqi uoLULuns osie ABLU |eunqui siuieio 941 -3ie peyusA s^ueLunoop eq} }a6 JQ stusLunoop 9|y 'eouepiAe jeqfjn^ eonppe 'sBuipeeid JISMI pueLue O}POMO||B eq iieqs ssiiJBd eqi 'esodjnd }eiQ joj 'aLuoou! S]L| io sojnos sql BuipjeBeJSpej sq} p uo.itBUiLUjetep uo pesesosp sq} p SLUOOUI 34} Cuissssse jsye qsej^e aintuenb eqi eppspoi |eunqui SLUIBIQ eqt 01 >|oeq jsuetueiji IILUSJ pue A|UO fjed Lun}uenb aq^ o( S9ie|9j}[ se JEJOSUI pjeMe pau6ndLui 9qi spise }es 'yed ui |B9dde snosueiieosiLU eqi MO||B am 'A[6u!pjo3ov 'frl. •Aouepusdep ;o SSQ| }o uoiiexy pue paseeoep eqt p eiuooy! ei)} p uoiteuiLujsiap jo tosdsej ui leunqyi SLUIGIO SL|} 10 pue eq) ie uoiiejspisuoosj sajinbaj jaueiu 9L|} 'ejo^ejeqi •£|. •qinfl 941 ^no puy pue Luiep eq} o)ui Ajinbus jedojd e }onpuoo o) iBunqui sujieio 94} p A)np 941 SBM }! 'eAoqe e^ p MSIA U| 'zi. 0 ^.......... •;uo!iesu3dujoo }snf, eq} ssssse ueo )i (eq} os uoiiisod IOSJJOQ pue anj) eqi uieysose Q( 8|OJ aAipe ue a^Btejo^sjeq} p|noqs ]Bunqui 3L|i •.uoiiesuadLuoo }snf, sq} GuiuiLujat&p jo^ .LUiep sqi 0(ui Ajinbueue p|oq, 0} pejinbej si oqm qimuo js^ees pue jejo|dxa sAipe ue sefnq 'iins IIAIO e ui se GJidujn lEJfnau e SB uosoun^ }ou saop |Bunqui eq) leq) luspiAe t! e^jeiu loy 9Mt P 691 pue 891. suoipes 'AiiiiqBsip tUGueuued ^o lueixe 94} jeinoiyed ui 'peye Jieqi puEssunfu! 94} o) pje6sj ui psjapuei si eouspiAe leoipsuj ueqM joiepQds tU9|is e eq }ou pinoqs |eunqui 341 •[,|,,, ""s«a»,»„ /&...^^ 1 i 'te^i l u ~^^..^-' ;.-^1 ^^f\ ^ ^to. ^^. -:^^<^^ -^ •ty^/ Gopa! 1> already been deposited, shall be dealt with by the Claims Tribunal by passing appropriate order. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge