IZT fflg'" Bsiii IN THE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR fC.G.1, M.A. fO N0« U'^ /2008 APPELLANTS ^s^. •T:A ^^W' ^.r ^^^^ ^w" ,....'^ :1. Anandram Sahu, S/o. Pitambar Sahu, aged about 30 years, 2. Samarin Bai, W/o. Anandram Sahu, arged about 28 years, Both R/o. Viliage- Bhorkadjpa/ P.S. Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPOTADENTS VERSUS :1. Ramesh Rai, S/o. Kamiesh Rai, Caste-Bungali, aged about 23 years,. R/o. Kalkatta (W.B.), (Driver ofTruck Trai!er NO.N.LO.-01/A-7759) 2. Sukhbinder Singh, S/o. K. Slngh, R/o. 4/1. B. Rajeb Ali Lan, Kolkata-23, (W.B.) 700023 (Owner of Vehicie Trailer) ^—3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road Fit Mumbai 400001, Branch Office Raipur, The New India Insurance Company Umited, G.E. Road, Bajrang Market Raipur, Distrlct Raipur (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL s AWARD AMOUNT s .1,32, (It is a death case of 8 years Giri, fcherefore, the appeilant is only daiming further enhancement of Rs.1,00,000/-) k^< ^) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 1Z3.QETHEJWTOR VEHICLE ACT^ 1QSB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISC^ARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 1683/2008 ^) APPELLANTS Anaiidram Sahu and another I^rsus R^PONDENTS Ramesh Rai and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESE2ST :- Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for fhe appeUaiits. Shri A.K. Atlialey, Advocate for respoiident No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 15th day ofFebmaiy, 2010) Per N.K. Afiaa'wal. J 1. This is claioiauts' appeal seekiag enliaiiceinent of conipensation ia fhe award dated 27-9-2008 passed ia Claiia Case No. 48/2007 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuual, Bhatapara, CamLp Court Baloda Ba^ar whereby and whereunder, aii amount of Rs. 1,32,000/r along with iiiterest at flie rate of6% per aniium from tlie date of appMcatioxi tiU its payinent has beeu awaided agaio.st the respondents and in favour of fhe appellants/claimaat. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under: - 3. On 28-4-2006 Ku. Sunita Sahu, aged about 8 years met with ao. accident with vehicle bearmg registratioii No, NLO-01/A- 7759 and succumbed to fhe mjuries sustaiaed iu the said accident The appellaQ.ts/clminants have filed fhe doiwL petition under Section 1^6 read with Section 140 offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly "the Acr) claunmg Rs. 5,25,000/- as compensatioii along wifh mterest at fhe rate of 12% per annuni for the death oftheir daughter Ku. Sunita Sahu. 4. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutmy of fhe evidence led, material placed aad siibmissions made by the parties, held that the appellaats have also contributed to fhe cause of accident to the tiuie of 20%; assessed eompeiisation at Rs. 1,65,000/~; reduced the saizie on^account of contributory negUgence to fhe extent of 20% ao.d thus awarded total amount ofRs. 1,32,000/- as compensation to tlie appellaiits/ clamiaats for the deafh ofthe deceased. ^ 5. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learaed counsel for fhe appellaats would subxnit fhat leamed Tribunal has erred ia holding fhe appellaats Mable for the cause ofaccident to the extent of20%. 6. Per contra, Shn A.K. Afhaley, learaed counsel for the respondent no. 3 / msuraace compaay would szibmit that fhe award passed by leamed Tnbunal is based^on cogent aad clmching evidence, does not call fbr iaterference of this Court aiid the saine deserves to be upheld. 7. I have heanl leamed coiiasel for fhe parties, perused fhe award aa.d fhe record of the Tnbunal. 8. Leamed Tribunal ia para-8 ofits judgnient has held fhat the appellants have not cared for fhe deceased child, due to fhat, she was crossing fhe road when the accident occiirred aiid for that, fhe appeUaats also have contributed to fhe cause of accident of 20%. Merely because fhe child was crossing fhe road, it cao.not be said fhat the appellaats contdbuted to fhe cause of accident Learaed Tribunal based on F.I.R* recorded the above fmdmg. In fhe FJ.R. Ex. A-2 it has been clearly nientioned that the said accident occurred due to rash aiid negMgent drivmg by fhe driver of the offendmg vehicle asid, fherefore, the offence has been registered agamst fhe said driver. It is also settled view fhat the mmor caimot be held responsible for the cause of accident. The fmdmg recorded by tiie tdal Court appears to be based on 110 evidence. 9. In view of the above, m fhe opiaion of fhis Court, leamed Tribunal has en'ed iii recordiag such fiiidiag and in holding / the appeUaats Mable for fhe accident to the extent of 20% and fhereby reduciag the aiiiount of coxnpensation to such extent. 10. For fhe foregomg, fhe appeal is allowed m part. The appellants are held entitied for the amoiiut of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal i.e. 1,65,000/- without deductmg fherefrom the aiaount towards contdbutoiy negUgence. The iuterest part offhe award shall remam as it is. •--{ •^ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge