u .^-^ ^ IN HI&H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISCELLEANOUS APPEAL (C) N0. !ffiiimg5n°i!''8 El^ :,^ ItiSSiSSViiS Bisj^ /2009 APPELLANTS Driver of the Vehicle ^^^^ ..••:;£'%% ..."i^* t^ ^ss^^^ yi®( ®a j^A&-J Recfistered Owner if the Vehicle l'. Sanju Bhena, S/o Baldev Bhena, aged 21 years, R/o Village- Malhar, Police Station- Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Nand Kumar, S/o Dulari Singh, aged 47 years, R/o Village- Nevari, Police Station- Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Vs RESPONDENTS raimants 1. Bhagat, S/o Sukhraj Kevat, aged 18 years. /2. Bhagmati Kevat, W/o Sukhraj Kevat, aged 45 years. Both are R/o Village- Malhar, Police Station- Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) MISCELLEANOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. Valuation of appeal at Rs.3,50,000/- Vc Court fee Rs.15/- Thp appeal is within limitation. HIGH COURTOF <aiHATT!SGA]RH,^ILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa'ble G. MINHAJUSDIN, JJ APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: [.A1C1 No.860/2009 Saniu Bhena aad another Vs. Bhagat aud anoftier ^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLBS ACn',^.988 Appearance: Mr. Malay Sbrivastava, counsel for the appeUaat. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (08.08.2011) Per I.BS. OUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal has been. filed by the owner aad driver of the vebicle agaiast the impugned award dated 09.04.2009 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Clainis Tribunal, Bflaspur (C.G) m Claim Case No.38/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimaats are fhat on 13.01.2007 deceased Prahlad Kewat was loaduig Murum &om village Bakarud m TroUey No.C.O.lO-ZD/1336 and after loadiug fhe Munun deceased was coiuiectuig the TroUey with fhe Tractor beartag Regn.No.C.G.10 ZD/1235 but at that tirae, the driver of fhe tractor suddenly drove back fhe Tractor due to which the deceased sustauied uitemal injury ia his stom.ach froin fhe back tires of fhe Tractor. He was ^l 4. iminediately adnutted ia. CIMS, Bilaspur where he died on 14.01.2007 duriiig fhe course of treatnieut. After the iacident, FIR was lodged, Tractor was seized by fhe Pohce aad after coiapleting the iavestigation charge sheet was filed. At fhe tinie of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years. He was doiug labour works on contract and was eamiag Rs.200/- per day aad Rs.6000/- per monfh. The appeUaats beiug dependents/legal representatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 of tfae Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total coinpensation ofRs.29,17,000/- onvarious heads. Learaed Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation aad evidence on iccord held fhat deceased Prahlad Kewat sustauied uijuries when the Tractor was reversed by its driver Saaju Bhena in a rash and negl^ent nianner aad he died due to fh.e iajuries sustaiiied ia the said accident aad fh.e claimants are entifled to receive a total coinpensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from. fhe non-appUcaats joirifly aad severally. Leanied couiisel for the appellaut has argued fhat at fhe plot of Saaat Siagh, nioss was gathered near fhe Bore WeU due to accuuiulation of water aad when ftie deceased had gone fhere for driiLfcmg water, he had sUpped and struck agauist a waU of 2 Vz ft. height aad got iajuiy iu his stoinach. Leamed clauns Tribuiial after elaboratelv discussiag the evidence of clamiaat witaesses Bhagat Kewat (A.W.l), S.N. Mishra (A.W.3) aad Naad Kuinar (N.A.W.l) has coine to conclusion that fhe deceased sustained injuries when fhe Tractor was reversed by non-appUcaat no. 1 for coiinectmg fhe TroUey aud disbelieved the stoiy fhat on the date of accident M l^to". v\ when fhe deceased had gone to a Bore WeU at the plot owned by one Sanat Siugh for drinking water, he slipped fhere and feU down due to which he got iatemal iiijuiy ia his stoiaach. 6. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat at lengfh aad have also gone fhrough fhe records. 7. A perusal of fh.e postniortein report shows fhat the cause of death is heinorrhage due to laceration of Uver. Such a grave iojiiry could not have been caused wifhout fhere being heavy iiapact aad fhat too by aa iron object aiid not by inerely slipping aad faUing down. 8. AppUcant witness Bh^at Kewat (A.W.l), brofher of deceased aad Rajendra (A.W.2) who was au eye witoess to the iacident have stated fh.at on 13.01.2007 at noon time deceased along- with Rajendra, Naud Kumar, Eshwar, Rajau & Bajraha had gone to work as labouiers ia fhe Tractor-TroUey for loadiug fhe Marwn. After loadiag the material, deceased was coiinectuig the TroUey with Tractor but at ftiat tune, driver Saaju Bhena has rashly reversed the Tractor, as a result ofwhich, deceased sustaiaed iajuries froin fhe back portion of the Tractor wheel aud died on 14.01.2007 durmg the course of treatment ia CIMS Bilaspur. Bhagat Kewat (A.W.l) aud Rajendia (A.W.2) have furfher stated in their cross examinations that Saaad Siugh, who is brofher of the owner of the vebicle, has threatened that he will not provide niedicines to fhe iajured if fhe report is lodged aud under Uis piessure, fhese witaesses aad inofher of deceased Baginati Bai have gtven stateinent before the Police that the deceased had .slipped aad faUen down at the Bore WeU, due to which, he sustauied iajuries aad died. ="^'h='^tSWMi;^^i^^^ iw 9. 10. Another claiinant witaess S.N.Mishra (A.W.3), Assistaut Sub Inspector, has also deposed that these witaesses have told 1iim that at the iastaace aad under the pressure of Saaad Singh, they have narrated the story fhat the deceased feU down at the Bore weU and sustaiued iajuries, ofherwise he would not provide niedicines aad treatm.ent to the victim. Therefore, no / report was lodged earUer. A.W. 3 has furttier stated that after investigation, he found that the deceased died due to Tractor accident aud not by faUiag down at Bore WeU. Further non-appUcaat No.2 Naad Kuinar (N.A.W.l) has stated fhat he was own.er of the Tractor TroUcy ia question and on fhe date of accideut, the said vehicle was not in workinj condition and it was sent to Garage for repairs. He has stated ia Para. 16 of his cross examiaation tbat he has not seen that the deceased sUpped aad feU down at fhe Bore WeU. In view of the above discussion, we are of fhe opinion that the theory of death of deceased due to slippiag and falliag down at the Bore WeU is iuiproper aad fhe Tribunal has r^htly coine to the conclusion fhat the deatii was due to iajuiy sustauied by the deceased ia the m.0tor accident. Therefore, fh.e said findius of fhe leamed Clfiims Tribunal does not caU for iaterference by fhis Court. At fhis stage, learued couiisel has prays for considering fhe quautum. part also. The Tribunal has assessed the incoine of the deceased as Rs.2500/- per m.0nth and Rs.30,000/- per aanuni, but we take the iacome of fhe deceased as Rs.3000/- per m.onth and Rs.36,000/- per amium.. The Tribunal has deducted l/3td towards personal and liviag expenses, but siace fb.e deceased was bachelor, one half (1/2) is Uable to be, ^^S~i i^ ^ deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the loss of dependency conies to Rs.1500/- per inonttl i.e., 18,000/- per annum. Lookiag to the age of the deceased the Tnbuiial has appUed inultiplier 17 which is on h^her side, It is settled law that where the parents are claunants, fhe ages of the parents are to be taken into consideration. The father has already died. Therefore, considering fhe age of the inother who was 45 years at fhe , time of accident, nillltiplier 14 would be applicable as laid down ia Sarta Vemui (Smt.) -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation. and another (Para 40) reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Upon usiug ttie inultiplier 14, fbe total loss ofdependency comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs. 18,000 x 14). Besides this, the claiinaiits are entitled to Rs.5000/- for loss of estate aad Rs.5000/- for funeral expeases aud after adding Rs. 10.000/- under the other heads, the total amount of coiupensation coines to Rs.2,62,000/-. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced aad naodt&ed to the extent fhat fhe claunants should be entiUed to get Rs.2,62,000/- as conipensation. The conditions inentioned in. clauses (b), (d) & (e) of Para 31 of the award dated 09.04.2009 shaU remaui iutact 11. Accoiduigly, the appeal is aUowed ia part. No order as to costfs). _-^._—-^ SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhaiuddin Judge Rao'