.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DLVLSJONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. JVIisc. Appeal No.1263of 2005 ^ ^. -^^ x \ AppelSant Claimant Respondents Appellants Olaimants Ramesh Kumar Bajaj son of Shri Bhagwan Das, aged about 47 years, Resident ofMandiRoad, Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Khetan Transport, through: The Managing Director, Khetan Transport, Bilaspur Owner ofthe vehicle Santosh Son of Unknown, Occupation Driver, Resident of - Village Phingeshwar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) Driver The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Dhamtari(CG) Insurer Misc. Appeal No. 1265 of 2005 1. Smt. Savita Agrawal Widow of Late Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, aged about 40 years 2. 3. 4. Amit Agrawal \s/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawat, aged about 17 years; Ku. Varsha Agrawal, D/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, aged about 15 years Ku. Sweeti Agrawal, D/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, aged about 11 years '^z The appellant No. 2, 3 and 4 are minor, through: their natural guardian mother Smt. Savita Agrawal Widow of Late Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal and Resident of Near Chandi Mandir, Kurud, District Dhamtari C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1 Khetan Transport, through: The Managjng Director, Khetan Transport, Biiaspur Owner of the vehicle 2 Santosh Son of Unknown, Occupation Driver, Resident of Village Phingeshwar, Tahsi! KurUd, District Dhamtari (CG) Driver 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Dhamtari (CG) Insurer Miscenaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ^< Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counse! for respondent No.3- Oriental Insurance Company Limited. ORDER ^th (10InMay,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. These are claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.07.2005, passed in CJaim Case Nos.01/2004 and 02/2004. uy' gy ESI^ ^\ B^^y^^. 1 '-:®^^ 4 /•- '•^ t>. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-, claimed by appellant/claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj in Claim Case No.01/2004 and compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- claimed by the claimants in Claim Case No.02/2004, by filing separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, forthe injuries sustained by claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj and for the death of deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal in the motor accident on 28.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- in Claim Case No.01/2004 and Rs.50,000/- in Claim Case No. 02/2004 under 'nq fault liabitity' aiong with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of jnsurer's failure to depos'rt theamount of compensation within 30 days of the passing oftheaward. 3) Claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj was pillion-rider on the motorcycle Kinetic Chailenger bearing registration No.C.G.05/0924, which was being driven at the time of the accident by deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal. The accident occurred at about 8:00 p.m. in the night when the above motorcycle dashed against the stationary Dumper resulting in the death of motorcyclist Shyam Sunder Agrawal and injuries to pjllion-rider Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants could not establish that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver .of the Dumper; in fact the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist; as such, the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of the alleged negligence of the driver of the Dumper; the claimants in the two cases, however, r"»te. ^m ~- ^^.\ ":^, '^: 1 'l ;v>^.- ~"^S5&^~ c^ ^ ^ -^^' Y \- were entitled to get only the amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively under 'no fault liability'. 5) The Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs.25,000/- to ciaimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj in Claim Case No.01/2004 and Rs.50,000/- to the claimants in Claim Case No.02/2004 for the death of deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing oftheaward. 6) Shri P.P. Sahu, iearned counsel forthe appetlants in both the appeals vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in hotding that the motorcyclist alone (deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal) was responsible for the accident; and in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively 'no fault liability'. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand supported the award and contended that from the admissions made by claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj, it is apparent that the motorcyclist and the motorcyclist alone was responsible for the accident. 8) From the police papers available in the records of the Tribunal it is apparent that the motorcycle driven by deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal on which claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj was travelling as pillion-rider dashed a stationary Dumper from behind. The speed and impact of the motorcycle can very weil be inferred from the fact ^sv "-^jr '•:li%iSfe ?3""-" ...4:;' "^^w^" Y v that deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal died on the spot itself. it is further apparent from the documents and material available on the record that the Dumper in question was parked by the side of the road. It hascome in evidence of claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj that the width of the road at the place of the accident was sufficient enough for smooth passing of three vehicles at a time. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel forthe parties and theabove mentioned broad feature ofthe case, we do not find any infirmity in the flnding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the motorcyclist i.e. deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal was wholly responsible for the accident and it was not a 6ase of contributory negligence. 10) In this view of the mater, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as maximum amount awardable under 'no fault liability' in the injury case/ death case has already been awarded by the Tribunal. 11) For the foregoing reasons, both theappeals filed by claimant Ramesh Kumar Bajaj (M.A. No.1263/2005) and the other appeal filed by the claimants for the death of deceased Shyam Sunder Agrawal ( M.A. No. 1265/2005) are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. A9arwal judge subbu