,-A t-i yes-"- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IU.A.C. N0. ^^' OF 201 APPELLANTS NON- APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT N0.1 NON-APPLICANT No.2 ^^..•"''' /.-.. v"9f'~ .;,. ^ i^-. s^ ^•\-^'l^' ^•>I^ L^(-^ .&' ^ 518s® S5t 1. Nalnikant Mishra S/o Manu Lal Mishra aged about 54 years, R/o Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara (City) District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver of Motor Cycle) 2. Diwakar Mishra S/o Nalnikant Mishra aged about 26 years, Resident of Sadar Bazar Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara (City) District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of offending vehicle Motor cycle Bajaj Boxer bearing No. C.G./ZJ-6727). Presently residing at village Sarkipar Post Semradih Police Station Suhela District Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Pratap DasS/o Maya Das Manikpuri, CLAIMANTS Aged about40years 2. Niraj Das S/o Maya Das Manikpuri aged about 36 years (Both R/o Village Lahod Police Station Kasdol District Raipur Chhattisgarh) IWISC£LLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 jf,f& ^^-.. 1. < '%^^*^ l' l^ ^'. as^^'aj" ^"^^"^* gss"?' f^.s' ^^oi-s 't'?**?"5^^"^ A'CSi^ ;*'?'?S?? A^>aa'sa BES n'ufl wUUKj. Ur<-»raifiJ!i5yAt$H_AS_BIS..AS"UK (f, M.i if*\ ^.S ^. '^*?*^ yvt.K SVSf\€\^. .i^) NQ,4.^ £yf. 4.yy^ Nalnilont Mishra and another 'nl /'In;, Pratao Das and another Sd/- G. Minha]uddi" Judge -^\ .s / .'^sr OF .(0) N0.2720.F201 ietlants Respondents Claimants \'t Na'nlkant Mishra and another Pratao Das and another *resent; Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, counseS forthe appettants. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsei for the respondents. \^-Auaust.,201 luin. 1. This has by the'appeilants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 aciainst the a'ward dated 24"' December, 2008 by the Additional Motor Accident C'aims Tribuna!, Bhatapara, Camp Court, Bazar, Distt. Raipur (in short "the Tribunal") in Ciaim Case' No. 43107, on the driver and owner of the 2. Brief of the are that on 24.4.2007 at 1 in the noon Shyambai along with Manikpuri and Gajjudas coming on bicycte' Champa (Saiha) to Village : Lahoud a marriage ceremony. The on the bicycis of Khoman. As as they in between The!ki and Khamria, at time No.1 from Theiki side o" hjs motorcycle No. .CCG-ZJ-6727, by drivino it rashiy and negligently, and the bicycie of Khoman. As a of this coiiision, all of them fel! on the road. Due to this accident, Shyambai grievous JRJuries over her head, forehead, hands and blood staiteu oozing from her mouth and she fainted. However, during the course of treatment she succumbed to the injuries. Report of ihe accident was at police station on the day whereupon Cr.No.101/07 for the offence punishable under Secfion 304A of the IPC was and investiyation, was fiied '.before the ccsncerned Court. 2. w/ I!' 3. The claimants, who are ofthe deceased, being her heirs fjted a clairn under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs.4,82,500/-undervariousheads. 4, However, learned Tribunal, after ciose scrutiny ofthe evidence, ora and docurnentary, adduced before it by the parties, a tota! of Rs.1,37,000./- in favour ofthe ciaimants, the liabi'ity upon the appeltants jointly and severaily. 5. Heard Searned counsel for the respective parties, perused the LCR as the impugnea' -award. S. Contenfion of iearned counsel for the appellants is that the vehicle of the appellants not involved in the accident and they have been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that on the of accident, appellant No.1 along with his wife had gons on the motorcyc.Ie of his son appellant No.2 to Bhatapara to the mamage of his friend's daughter and just to falseSy irnpiicate that the number of his motorcycle has menttoned as the offending vehicle while iodging the report in station, which •was also iodged belatedly. Learned counsel has further contended the amount of compensation is also exorbitant and the r '. On the contrary, learned counsei for the has the impugned award. i. The claimants have examined witnesses the Tribuna!, who have consistently given evidence that on the of accsdent when the was returning weduing with his grand-son Khoman, appe'lant No.1 Nalnikant came from opposite direction driving the motorcycie rash!y and and the bjcycie of Khoman, on account of which the fe!l down and grievous injuries and succumbed to the I" the evening on the date. The appeilants, who were non-applicants i" the claim before the Tribunal, have not to anything from the claimants' in their cross- examination. which could discredit their testsmonv. In addition to this, on the of FIR, 304A of the IPC was fK^^ ^•<:-^^^"^; '^..' '^&f,/ '*-a^_s,^si'' ""'^s^ssS-^ against appeflant No.1 and after investigation. charge sheet under Sectron 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was fifed before ths Gourt. Charge has been framed against appellant No.1. wnicn was chafjenged by him before the High Court and the same was aism.ssed, maintaining the order of the framino chsrge. s. As such, on the of evidence adduced the Tribunal. it thaf on fhe date ofaccident, fhe motorcycie driven by No.1 was the offending vehicle, which was beina driven rasniy and negligenffy on account of whteh Shyambai sustained gr'evous injurtes and succumbed to the same. Therefore, so far as compiicity of appellant No.1 in the accident is concemed. the by fhe Tribunat in this regard cannot be with, 'lt. As regards the quantum, from perusal of the materia! avaiiabie on recorct, especialiy the postmortem report, it is ctear that aye of the was 65 years on the date of accident and ciaimants have that she used to earn Rs.150/- per day by seiting The cfaimants are sons offhe deceased, who are aaed 4U years 36 years respectively, Thus, looking to the aae of me aeceassd and that of the ciaimants, who are able bodied male. if cannot be said, by any stretoh of imagination, that the claimants were dependent on ths as per statements of respondent No.lfclaimant Pratap Das (AW-1), he and his brother s'.i.raj uas (respondent No.2/c!aimant) were earning Rs.70/- to 80/- per day by do'ng iabour work. Thus, in view of the fact that the respondents/claimants were not on the there •was no ioss of dependency on accounf ofdeath ofShyambai.! .However, respondents/claimants will be entitled to an amount of Rs.50,OOOA, whteh is awardabie under the head of "No Fault Liabillty" and after of the deceased, this amount becomes a part of estafe. In addition to this, the respondents/ciaimants wiil aiso be to an amount towards ioss of estate and ^inerai and incurred on treatmenf tjff death of the plus expenses, if any, incurred in,transportina the dead ^ &7 9- ^ ^ bod^fRMn hospital to their,jBative ptace- It would ESie'appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and tota! Rs.1©,000/- towards funeral expenses, expenses incurred on treatment tilt^eath and expenses incurred in transporting the body. Thug, the respondents/claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.70,000/-. !; 12. In the result, the appeai is partly allowed. impugned award:datec 24.12.2008 is modified to the extent that the respondents/claimants r- -- - -^ be entitted to a tota! compensation of Rs.70,000/- in^lSce of Rs.1,37.000/-. They shail also be entiUed for interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.70,000/- from the of filing of claim petition tll! its payment is made. The amount, if any, deposited by the appeliants in excess of Rs.70,000/- shail be refunded to them. However, if the amount in excess of Rs.70,000/- ha-s been disbursed to the c!aimants, then the appellants shail be entifted to recover the same from the claimants. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^