HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR i ^' CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'bleShri Sunil KumarSinha,_J. Misc. Apoeal No. 1088 of 2003 Smt. Rukmani and others Vs. Baluram Yadav and others ORDER For cons^ration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge T HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA .? ^^ Sd/- Cbief Justice] Post for Order :/^/12/2009. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAIVI: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUWIAR SINHA. J. Misc. ARpeal No. 1088 of 2003 ^ APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1 • Smt. Rukmani, aged 20 years, W/o late Madhav Sahu 2 DujRam, aged 50 years, son of Tijau Ram 3. Smt. Kastur Sahu, aged 45years, w/o.Duj Ram Sahu ^ 4. Vishnu, aged 1 yea'r, s/o Madhav Sahu, represented by his guardian mother Rukmani Bai \ All residents of village Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G). Versus 1. Baluram Yadav, s/o Manrakhan Yadav, R/o vill. Farhada, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G). Driver 2. Arun Chandrakar, s/o K.R. Chandrakar, R/o Vill. Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G). Owner 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Krishna Complex, Katchahri Chowk, Raipur (C-G). Insurer (ABBeaLynder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 Appearance: Mr. C.R. Sahu, counsl for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chopra.counsel forrespondents 1 & 2. Mr. Dasbrath Gupta, counsel for respondent no.3. ./" \] I ! > »',;<:<aB»;. 1\ M.A.No.1088 of 2003 ORDER (/S'.12.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Being aggrieved with the award dated 05.09,2003 passed in Claim Case No.24/2003 by the First Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. By the said award theclaim petition filed by the appellants u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed by the Tribunat. \ \, (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellants/claimants field a claim petition u/s 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,18,000/- on account of death of Madhav Sahu in the motor accident which took place on 03.02.2003. The appellants/claimants are wife, parents and minor son of deceased Madhav Sahu. They pleaded that the deceased was agedabout 24 years. He was earningRs.150/- per day by doing labourwork. On the fateful day, he was engaged as a labour in Tractor/Trolly ofArun Chandrakar(respondent no.2). The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. ' Respondents 1 & 2, owner and driver, denied the contentions raised by the appellants. They have also denied the involvement of their vehicle in the said accident. Respondent no.S/lnsurance Company also denied the pteaaings rai'sed by the appellants. However, it pleaded that the vehicle was insured under farmers package policy, therefore, liability of the insurance company was to the extent of Rs.10,OOQ/- v only. ,, Hl ll^ii .^-" M.A.No.l 088 of 2003 Appellant no.1 examined herself as A.W.1 and they also examined one Tek Ram as A.W.2 in support of their claim petition. The owner Arun Chandrakar examined himself as N.A.W.1. However, no witness was examined on behalf of the insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1500/- per monthas a labourer. After deducting 1/3 towards thepersonal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.12000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 12 to the said dependeeicy of Rs.12,000/-, the \ • '. .'^, •;'. •• compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,44.000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.4000/- under the other heads, the \total amount of compensationwasworkedoutto Rs.1,48,000/-. ^ Even after determining the entitlement of the appellants to the extent of Rs.1,48,000/-, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants/claimants could not establish that the accidentoccurred on account of rash and negligent driving ofthe offending vehicle by its driver. (3) Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the appellants could not establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. He also argued that the finding in relation to the quantum of compensation is alsoincorrect. . (4) On the other hand, Mr. Vh/ek Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3,i opposed these arguments and supported theaward passed bythe Tribunal: •^\ —3"^^ !!; M.A.No.l088of2003 (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe claim case. (6) Tek Ram (A.W.2) was also present on the Trolly of the Tractor. He has deposed as to how the accident took place. Though his evidence is not in detail rega'rding the accident but he has proved the involvement of the vehicle as also the manner in which the accident took place. After going through the entire evidence of this witness, it does not appear that the pleading in relation to rash and negligent driving should have been out-rightly rejected by the Tribunat We feel that the findingof the Tribunal in this regard is not just and proper. The v. .. involvement of the vehicle, though denied in the pleading by the owner and driver, has been established by presenting copies of the police papers. Therefore.we set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants could not prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving ofthe vehicle by its driver. We feel that the evidenc^consideration on the said issue is not sufficient and the matter requires reconsideration. (7) So far as theassessment of the income is concerned, that also does not appear to be correct. If the evidence in relation to income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, the Tribunal ought to have determined theincome ofthe deceased on the basis ofnotional income, keeping in mind the rise of prices of essential commodities and the cost oflivingin between 1994, when the notional incomeafas prescribed, and 2003 when the accident took place,and it ought to have applied a proper multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased who was aged about 24 years, his wife who was aged about 20 years and his ^ '.^^' M.A.No.l088of2003 parentsand minor childwho were aged about 50 years, 45 years and 1 year respectively. (8) Therefore, in view of the above and also taking into consideration that the Motor Vehicles Act -is a benevolent legislation, we deem it appropriate to remand this matter to the Tribunal for further enquiry and fresh decision. (9) For the foregoing reasons, theappeal is allowed. The impugned award is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal for passing a fresh award on all issues after giving due opporturiity of leading evidence to all the parties on all issuesafresh. (10) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. '\ Sd/- ChiefJiisttce.^<'. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao