IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR > MISC. APPEAUC) N0. S 7XOF 2011 Divjsion Beneft APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE 'MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 17.03.144/- (RUPEES SEVENTEEN LACS THREE THOUSAN& ONE HUN&RE& FORTY FOUR ONLY Appellant Non-Applicant .^/^//\ -M .••" <%y%/v //^ / ^ .-p'^ ,^ -5> / '' ^ ./' ^./^/ C5}1 "^y its Applicants/Claimants National Insurance Co. Ltd. bivisional Office, G.E. Road, Raipur through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Taha Complex, VyaparVihar Road, Bilaspur Versus ^^L'\Y-S\wa-^ -^ ^ ISI>1 1. Smt.rCaxmivafODevi, W/o Late Jagannath Prasad Sharma, aged 57 years, 2. Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Jagannath Prasad Sharma, aged 35 years 3. dilip Kumar, S/o Late Jagannath Prasad Sharma, aged 30 years 4. Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Jagannath Prasad Sharma, aged 29 years (All R/o Vill. Bardulla, P.0. Mainpur, P.S. Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (C6) 5. Mukesh Tiwari, S/o R.S. Sharma, through Maa Sharda Travels, Bus <""" Stand, Pandri, Thana Pandri, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C6) (Owner) X ~\, i"&^. "^- ^.•sfSSS^ 1 'i'^»c-<1 g "*sx<' V^Ss "•''•s's^iS.y1 fll jg^^.3_s s^-fie gf5^ ^^3''" ^^OS^ ?E^'^'gS>^*- S ^i. niun VUUK i •Jf i.»nnA11 ISIJAKI i-^j^?!^S^t&! Q^^tf^-S^Se s-|^&t?g3| ^ h.SQ s s^is ^ig 8nrs! ses ^. Ui¥SS|iJ'!'!i BC11U11: OUIM'Bl.t 1VIK. I.M.UUUUUSi & i?i MArclNo. 578/2011 janoeilant Non-aDDiicant K!/-A; Naiii 'neiir; ilaspur (CG) ADDlicants/claimants Op^* smt. LaKsnwaii ^s Cornpany Ltd. others Pr^^.^nf' Mr. Qamrul ,i>ziz, counsei for the appel Mr. Satyendra Sahu, counse! for responi insurance company. ents No. 1 to 4. '10tn peUM. 01) Heard on IA No.01 , an appfication for condonation of delay in fiiing this ap[ of 20 days. r\^\ U4; /^^ T*1^ ^S^tTl^ a^?^^ ?^^>^f» ^^fr^T?^^ F ^S^ ^^tTF^ /< fap-^i^ ,S S'ai' •k.St-ii i i'ii^ i i U.O ih^'.u;"u'S i iu/1 I!...i s E^ i i ^aU 1?lf ll>t i \A l»i^J£i»i 02) On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the abov'i appfication, which is also supported by ari afiidavit, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been abie to explain She in the satisfactorily. Accordingiy, !A No.01 is aHowed and dslay in fifing the appea! is condoned. 03) With the consent of the the matter is finally at >8 'adtTsission st'aae rtssiT 5 T^^ tiA^lrS I ^ I E^^T.uFS'uf^ ; ^n^- t-^Aj^ ^vp • fc l.fl^ Tl/ This has filed ia< ^^^ 4~?^ ,-? f-h^ "l^--^^rt^ ;Tion 113 OT ina ivioior Vehicies Act, 1988 against the award of the 14t Addiiional Motor Accidsnt Claims "Tribunal (FTC), Raipur, dated -! r? << -r>rt'<'1 s-.-sA,-....,,-' ^^ /M^:^^ /^-^.">^ M^QFt/^n i"i^ 4' "i.ai.i.zuii passsu "'in uiaim uass IMO.^U/IU oy ine company, whereby iiabiiity has fastened upon the appellant/insui severaliy, with the owner. upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and )5) of the case are-.fhat on 29.4.2009 at 7.1: am, driver of the bus reaistration No. CG-04-E-037 / ,,s''.yaa»,: 'iQ\ '^ i 10^ s w/ 11) ^ by driving the bus in a and negligent rnanner, it the tree, resulting in grievous injuries to the persons sittino in the bus and death of Jaflannath Prasad Sharma and other passengers. Report of the accident was iodged in the police station, whereupon crime was reyistered against the driver. 16) At the of accident, Jagannath Prasad Sharma was a heaEthy rnan of 58 years and was earning Rs.23,377/'- per rnonth by working as a teacher. The claimants, who are his widow and chiiuren, being his legal heirs fiied a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for a totai compensation of Rs.21,90.000/- against the death of Jagannath Prasad Sharma under various Uf') However, iearned Tribunal, close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, awarded a totai compensafion of Rs.17,03,144/- in favour of the ciaimants, fastening the liabiiity jointly ana' severally upon the appeifant/snsurance company and owner of the bus. Vv'e have heard learned counsel for the appeiiant, perused the LCR as ateo the irripugned aw-ard. Learned counsel for the appellanVinsurance company h-as iubmitted that one of the dependents of the had lot compassionate appointment but that fact has not been considsred bv the Claims Tribunai. in the matters of ff SCC th( h'on'ble Suprerne Court has held th-at the received by way of cqmpassiup.ate appointment and accommodation ought to have taken into consideration while determining just compensation. in view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 4 •^\ ''•/ 13) 1S1f 161 17) 18) !n the result, we aiiow this in part, set the impugned and remit the matter to the Tribuna! to the giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the Ijght ofthe observations above. Neediess So mention that the be aliowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, fiie documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, the be rna-de afresh. Parties shali appear before the Tribunal on 15th September, 2011. The-appllcation under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 of the appeliant/insurance company, which i-s pending, also be dscided by the Tribuna!. Out of the amount, which is in deposit, Rs. 5 iacs shai! be to the claimants and rest uf the amount be in fixed deposit in a nationafized bank, which be subject to the to be by the Tribunal. LCR sha!l be sent back to the Tribuna! without further delay. M^_ .-.^.-j-^^ NO orasr tn fnstc iy uu^siSi t*F ? i ^^ J^a. :!'EiHB^£1 fT?f'IV Htn:. F1&^ir H UH:* •S.SS''.-".^ 'a.F'^^'J i^lui ^-if'iu.-L i <8.1 ii'uf-u3 . Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge •f