^'f\;^;"-^ "^ 1 lftap^-. 1 ci "^Si^ 1 t %.. y i l^st^^<^ ^^SSS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BJLASPUR M.A.C.No. 456 of 2008 APPELLANTS Uma Bai & another VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Ravi Kumar Aditva & others AWARD For consideration i 09.2011 Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. 5 Sd/- Chief Justice Post for: -L .09.2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ,-€S^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appellants Respondents Non-apDlicants M.A.(QNo. 456 of 2008 1. Uma Bai widow of Rajesh Sahu, aged about 22 years 2. Chandan Bai widow of Chandrika Sahu aged about 55 years Both R/o Jhoprapara, Pollce Station Tarbahar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). , Versus 1. Ravi Kumar Adltya S/o Chinkuram Aditya aged about 28 years R/o opposite Chayaghat, Babakut, Ward No. 20, Raigarh, Tahsil and Dlstrict Raigarh. 2. Subhash Chandra Agravi/ai, S/o Shankar Agrawal R/o Chapriganj, Kharsia Tahsil Kharsia, District Rajgarh (CG). 3. Branch Manager, iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 45-347, 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, GE Road, Rajpur (CG). (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta. CJ & Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AaarwaS. J.l Present : Shri A.V. Shridhar, Advocate for appellants. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. AWARD (DeiSvered on ^ /09/2G11) Per : N.K. Aaarwa!. J. This is claimants' appeai seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Vith Additional Motor Accident daims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 87/07 vide award dated 19.1 1.2007. 2. As-against Rs. 11,50,000/- daimed by unfortunate widow and mother of deceased Rajesh Sahu by filing application under r ^r^ (.. Section 166 of the Motor Vehic!es Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident dated 04.03.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,50,200/- along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of appiication til! its actua! payment. The Tribuna!, on a close scrutiny of the evjdence led, hetd- coiiusion took place between motofcycie being driven by deceased Rajesh Sahu and Jeep bearing registration No. C-G-13-C-0463 being driven by respondent No. 1; respondent No,1 responslble for accident to the extent of 80 percenf; deceased Rajesh Sahu aiso contributed to the cause of negfigence to the extent of 20 percent; insurance company iiable for payment of compensation as it had failed to estabiish breach of policy conditlons; after deducting 20 percent towards contributory negiigence of the deceased; awarded Rs. 3,50,2007- as compensation to the appeilants/claimants for the death of deceased Rajesh Sahu aiong with interest @ 9 percent from the date of application tiij its actual payment hoiding respondents jointiy and severaily liable for Its payment. Shri A.V. Shridhar, iearned counsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued: the Tribunal has falien in error in holding deceased Rajesh Sahu responsible for accident to the extent of 20 percent and in reducing the amount of compensation accordingiy. On the other hand, Shri YS Thakur, learned counse! appearing for respondent No. 3/iFFCO Toklyo Genera! Insurance Company supported the award impugned and wouid submlt that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunaf ought to have held ^ ^,,< V:.:- 'l 1 ^' ^K ^'^^^y/ ^.^ deceased Rajesh Sahu equally responsible for the sccident, and ought to have deducted 50 percent towards his contributory negligence from the amount of compensation. The Tribunal, by taking libera! view has deducted only 20 percent towards contributory negllgence of deceased. The amountof compensatlon awarded by the Tribuna!, therefore, in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, cannot be termed as Inadequate. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of Tribunal including award impugned 7. Specific plea has been raised by respondent No. 3/!FFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company in the written statement filed before the Tribunal that deceased Rajesh Sahu himself was negligent inasmuch as was under influence of liquor, lost his contro! over the motorcycie, dashed the Jeep from behind and died on account of his own negligence. It was further pleaded that deceased was not having licence to drive the motorcycle. 8. The appeliants/claimants have filed Postmortem report (Ex. E/5) to prove the cause of accident. As per Postmortem report, semi liquid 200 ml. with alcoholic odor was present in the stomach of deceased Rajesh Sahu. Appe!!ants/c!aimants have examined on!y one witness i.e. Uma Bai to prove their case. Undisputedly, Uma Bai was not an eye witness. In para 3 of her statement. she has admitted that she has not seen the accident. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Orientai Insurance Company Llmited v. Premlata Shukla and Others, reported in 2007 (1 3) SCC- "\ 476, has held : proof of rashness and negligence on the pa?-t of the ^•••^<c driver of the vehicle is sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the MV Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, appellants/clajmants have not examined any witness in order to prove rashness and negligence driving of driver of Jeep bearing registration No. CG-13-C-0463. 10. The claimants have retied upon Postmortem report (Ex. E/5) in order to prove death of deceased on account of accidenta! injury. !t is trite law once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. The Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Llmited v. Premlata Shukia (Supra) has he!d in para 13 & 14 of its judgment as under: "13. However. the factum of an accident could a!so be proved from the first information report. tt is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have sa4B1re!led thereupon. it was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relled upon by both the partles, the iearned Tribunai cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespectjve of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, v^ould not arise." 11. Shri A.V. Shridhar, learned counse! appearing for the appellants contended the fact that deceased Rajesh Sahu was drivlng the ^ motorcycie under influence of iiquor ipso facto will not prove any negligence/contributory negligence on the part of deceased and further corroborative evidence in this regard was necessan/, in the absence thereof, the Tribunal has certainiy fel! in error in holding the deceased negligent to the cause of accident to the extent of 20 percent. 12. If we consider above submissior^of Shri Shridhar in the light of the fact that appeltants/claimants did not examine any witness to prove negligence of the Jeep driver in order to maintain application under Section 166 of MV Act as held by the Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premiata Shukla (Supra), then in our opinion, the Tribunal was quite liberal in awarding the compensation to the appellants for the death of deceased Rajesh Sahu by applying the principle of res ipsa loqultor and by hoiding the deceased negligent only to the extent of 20 percent inasmuch as, by applying principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case; the Tribunal could have dismissed the claim application. 13. An inference of negligence can be drawn if the driver of a motor vehicle is found driving the vehicle on public road under infSuence of liquor. Driving of vehicle under influence of liquor is not only against the public poticy but is also dangerous to life and safety of public at large. It is a matter of common knowledge that number of accident are increasing day by day due to driving of motor vehicle by drunkards. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in our considered oplnion, the Tribunal has not committed any illegajity in hoiding deceased Rajesh Sahu responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of20percent. 15. No other points have been raised. 16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismlssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu