tERyf@sj^ ? liSEivw i: IN THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, BILASPUR S! M.A.C. No:—of2011 APPELLANT Non Applicant No.-l RESPONDENTS Claiinants .,'-••"'(\'. -"^^- ,.^' ^^ "^•^: Respondents Non-AppUcant No.2 Respondents Non-Applicant No.3 s General Manager South Eastem Coal Field Ltd. OCM Store Officer, S.E.C.L. Regional Store, Vishrampiu-, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS ; 1. Amar Vijay Panna Urawn S/o Late Panna Urawn, Age about 42 years. R/o Chopda Colony, Vishrampur, Tah. Surajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) 2. Manoj Urawn S/o Late Panna Urawn Age about 39 years. R/o Lakada Para Vishrampur P.0. Vishrampur District Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Rajesh Kumar Gour S/o Mima Gour, Age About 39 years, R/o Lakada Para Vishrampur P.0. Vishrampur District Sarguja (C.G.) 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Liraited, Through: Branch Manager, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) \}^uc^\i") 4 ft(4^--< i^ i2-s- ^,0^^- h us^^ -f'fyrj c°Alt+ f<°& PJ- ir !T ^\i^^ t,&rel^l"t-t-i •2.' S~< •Z-(| ^" F— 6 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THEMOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 F? '^.^"^ /c~l^ 1 %: "-—"^l \ ^^ 'k^,. v ...</f> li S.B: Hon'ble Shi'i Prashaiit Kumar Mishra APPELLANT M.AC.No. 538/2011 Genera! Manager . South Eastenn C'oal Field Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS : Amar Vijay Pamia Urawn and others Apnearance: Shri O.P. Agrawal and Shri Viprasen Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UJNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLE ACT^19S8 ORAL ORDE.R (30.06.2011) The appellant is the owner of explosive van bearing registration No. C.G. 15 ZC 0987 by which the accident was caused at about 10.45pm on 6/11/2009, grievously injuring deceased Panaa Urawn who died instantaneously. According to the claimants deceased was aged 69 years and was eaming Rs. 1,32,000.- per year. An amount ofRs. 19.52.000/- was claimed as compensation. (2) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that tlie deceased had no income, therefore grant of avvard of Rs.80,000/'- towards loss of income is wholly en-oneous. According to learned counsel at best amoiint under no fault liabilit1r- could have been awarded in favour ofthe claimants. (3). I have penised the record of the claims tribunal and the impugaed award. In para 12 ofthe"award the claims tribuna! has fbund that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was "ZL !-l. engaged in agricultural operations and animal husbandry work, hovvever, the tribunal has taken notional income @ Rs.24,000/- per year after obsei'ving that the deceased was a retired public servant. (4) In the matter of Vidyanand Jha and others Vs. Koushal and others in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 917/2008 the Division Bench ofthis court by its order dated 17 June, 2011 has held thus ia para 15, "15. Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortimate accident wherein deceased Medha Jha lost her life took place in tlie year 2006. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 and 2006 ai-e taken into consideration. the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000- per amium." (5) In vievv ofthe said binding precedent ofthis court, I do not find that the assessment of notional income for an accident which took place in November, 2009 has been taben on higher side. The tribunal has further awarded Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses- Rs-5000/- to each of the claimants tovvards love and. afiection and fiirther Rs.5000.'- to each ofthe claimants for loss ofestate.and thus total compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- has been awarded. (6) lii the opinion of this court, the amount awarded by the claims \tribunal is just aiid proper and no interfereiice is called for. --^ (7) Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the claims tribiinal has wronaly exonerated the Insurance Compaiiy from Ae liability ofpayment ofcompensation. (8) In para 24 ofthe vvritten statement submitted by the appellant it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was an explosive van. (9) Under Section 14 of th^Motor Vehicles Act the said vehicle would be special categoty vehicle requiring a separate endorsement or a special license to drive an explosive van. (10) Since the driver ofthe offending vehicle was holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle and Hea'vy Motor Vehicle and there was no endorsement or a separate license tor driving an explosive van, it faas rightly been held by the claims tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle vvas not having a valid and effective driving license and consequently it has rightly been tbund that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. (11) No case for entertaming the appeal is made out. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge