® INTHEHIGHCQURTLQFJVDICATUREATBIL^^^ MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - < ^ OF^OW- '2-^ ^ ^ (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECT10N 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH1CLES ACT, APPELLANT pfAIMANT ^ <^ Manni Singh^ aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Suranjan Singh, R/o- Tatibandh^ Police Station - Amanaka, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT N.ON-CLAIMANTS ^' 1, ..^ Pradeep Kumar Bairagi, aged about SOyears, S/o Shivdhan Bairagi, R/o~ P.0.- Morwala, Police Station - Charidii Dadari,, District - Bhiwani (Hariyana) A^A^ .<^y ^y'.^ <^^"^t'" 2-- ..•-•::^:\'^ ^•\^:"'^ ^ ^ ^••'" <r-3. Charan Singh, S/o Shri Surjeet Singh^ R/o - Kothi No.-31, Officers Colony, Near S.P. Office- Rohatak, District - Rohatak (Hariyana) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Madeena Building, Medical College Road, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR APPELLANT M.A. (C) No. 262/2008 Manni Sui^i Versus RESPOND^rTS Pradeep Kumar Bairagi and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL SB HON'BLB SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR,JJ PRESENT:- Shri Dharmesh Shrivastav, Advocate^ for the appellants. Shii Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 3< ORAL ORDER 1. 3. (24-6-2011) This is claioaants appeal seeking enhancement of conipensation in fhe award dated 18-1-2007 passed by XIIfh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 28/2006. As against Rs. 14,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ elsimants by filtng application under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly tlie Act?) on account of inji.^ sustained by liim in tlie accident dated 8-6-2005 by truck No. HR-46-A/1163, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,89,888/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its payment. \ . J* . Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of fhe evidence led held, fhe accident took place due to head on collision between truck No. CG-04-J/0196 being driven by the appellant rashly and negligently and truck No. HR-46- A/1163 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar driver of the above truck; appellant/claimant responsible for the cause of accident to the extent of 50%; fastened liability of payment of compensation upon the respondents iucluding respondent No. 3/New India Assuraiice Company Limited as ^1'-.-^. ^, ^ respondent No. 3 failed to prove breach of policy conditions; assessed the disability of appeUant?s right leg to the extent of 55%; assessed income of ttie claimant as Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/-, applied niultiplier of 17 lookuig to the age of ttie appellant as between 30 to 35 years at the time of accident, assessed total amount of compensation as 5,49,000/-, after deducting 50% of it towards contributory negligence of the appellant, awarded 2,89,888/- as compensation along with interest at tfae rate of 7.5% per annum, 4. Shri Dharmesh Shrivasava, leamed counsel for fhe appellant would submit, leamed Tribunal has erred tn holding appellant also responsible for fhe cause of accident to the extent of 50% and ttius has erred in deducting 50% from the assessed amount of compensation. 5. On the ofher hand, Shri Saurabh Sharaaa, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/ tnsurance Company would support the award and would submit, leamed Tribunal has rightly held appellant responsible for the cause of accident to the extent of 50%. He would further submit, leamed Tribunal has wrongly held appeUant disabled to fhe extent of 55% in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the disability assessed by the doctor was only of right leg and not of the whole body and also the appellant has not exanained the fareating doctor. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal mcluding award tmpugned. 7. Appellant Manni Singh himself has adniitted in para 11 of the statement that the accident took place due to head on collision between both the trucks. There was a eurve at the place of accident. The other truck was not visible. The moment his truck reached to the curve he has seen the ^—•^\ '^•^ J ke3^f ^. 'w"^' ^^-^" 1^»*-NN other truck. The spot map (Ex. P-5) proved by fhe appellant in the case also shows that fhere is a cLirve on tlie road at the place of accident. On the curve if fhe accident took place due to head on collision of bofh the trucks, it cannot be said that the appellant driving one of the trucks is not responsible for fhe accident. 8. Considering the adinission of fhe appeUant and the spot Hiap filed in the case and the fact that fhere is curve at fhe place of accident and other vehicle is not visible and as both the drivers were not cautious while driving fhe vehicles and driving the vehicle in violation of the traffic rules, leamed Tribunal has not erred in holding appellant/clatmant responsible for fhe accident to the extent of 50% and accordingly assessing the compensation. More over the appellant/claimaiit did not suffer perinanent disability to the extent of 50% of the whole body. 9. Considering ever^7 aspect of the matter, we are of the view that leamed Tribunal has not committed any iUegality in awardtng the compensation to tlie appeUant/claimant after holding appellant responsible for the cause of accident to the extent of 50%. 10. The appeal being devoid of substance, deseryes to be and is hereby disniissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^^ V