•fc- BEFOI®THEaON'BI^HI<^COUiyT< ^ :-AT,BHA6]E>^' , l''/:;.'"'C'^^ • 1.1. M.A. fC) No. l&M 3 of 2011 AFTmAANT NQN-APPLICANT No.3. RESPONDENTS 'The Oriental Insyrance Company, through Division OfGce, Greetaryali Bhawan, Korba (.C.G.) VERSUS Snat. Kanti Baiy Wd/o Ramnath .Yadav, aged aboiit 35 years. Anand Yadas, S/d I-ate Retmnath aged abbyt 20 years. Omprakash, S/o Lafe Ramnath, aged about 17 yeiars. Arvind S/oLate Rainnath, aged 'a^c^.W^es^.^..\^:^^'':.^^.^^ ;A:Fnn'yadffy, S/b latg RainnEtth '?adav, aged ab&ut 14 years. RespondentNo. 3 tc>5 rninor, tlirougllna&ral guaTdiaIi inothei- SrrifcKsttitibai, R/oyiHage Singhia, Katghora,Distt.-Korba(aG.) CLAIMANTS Kaushal Prasad Prajapati, S/o Raineshwar, aged about33years, R/pIIJearPaliBusStaiid,Pali,' Korba (C.G.) (Driver) •f Non-AppU&arit N<». 1 Mangal Singh Chhabra, S/o Shri Santrarii Chhabra, R/o Mangal Eirana Stores, Pali, Disft. Korba (G.G.) (Owner) , :; , , ; Non-ApiFflicaniNio.^2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR 'p'. p; APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: DB: Hoa'Ue I. M. QUDDU8I 8s Hon'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A(Cl. No. 1042/2011 The Oriental Insuraace 'Coiapauy Vs. Sint. Kanti Bai aad others , MI8C. APPEAL UNDBR 8ECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 Appearance: Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paakaj Agrawal, counsel for the appeUant. None for the respondents though served. ORAL OKDER (12.12.2011) PCT I.M. QUDDUSI. J, 4. List is beuig icvised. Case is called out twice. No one is present on behalf of fhe respondents despite service of notice. Therefore, we proceed agaiast fhe respondents ex-parte. Heard. Tbis appeal has been filed by the Insitran.ee Coinpaay against the im.pugn.ed award dated 27.07.2011 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba challenguig fhe quantum. amongst ofh.er grounds. ^"- The facts of the case as per fhe version of the clauaants are that oa 24.09.2003 deceased Ramnafh Yadav alongwifh his daughter Anand were goiug frora Korba to Katghora on a Moped bea^ag. Regn.No.C.G.-12-ZF/2759. He was sitting as piUion rider. On the way at Dccrri Om. Juaction, a Jeep bearins 6. Regn.No.C.G.O/1067 which was beiag driven by non-applicant no.2 ia a rash aud negllgent inaiuier dashed the Moped, as a result ofwhich, the deceased sustaiaed grievous iujuries. The iajured jBled claioi petition u/ s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of total corapensation of Rs. 14,42,500/ - on various heads. However, later on duritig the pendency of the appeal, he died on 31.3.2004. At the tiine of accident tfae deceased wa^ aged about 40 yeare aad was eanung Rs.10,000/- per month. Leamed Clauns Tnbunal has held that the deceased died due to the accident inet wifh. by Jeep No.C.G. 10/1067; there was no breach of conditions of tiie uisuraace policy aad fhe claimaats are entitted to receive a total coinpensation of Rs.14,11,700/- from fhe aon-appUcants. We have heard leanied counsel for fhe parties aad have also gone through the iccords offtie Tribunal. Injured Ratunath iBled claiia petition but duriug the pendnecy of clami petition, he died aad his legal representatives were substituted ia his place. The Claim Tribunal decided fhe claun petition as if-flie sanie was a deafh claim whereas ia fact the iajured filed the claita petition <:laimiag coinpensation due to injuiy caused to 1nm iu the accident and he died on 31.3.2004 ^^' duriag the pendency of claim petition. The amendment ia place of the deceased by his legal heirs was made by order of tiie Clauns Tribunal on 23.11.2004 whereas the claun petition ^ ^ was filed by the iujiired on 09.5.2004. 8. » 9. Learued counsel for fhe appeUan.t has subinltted that the accident had taken place on 24.09.2003 aad tfa.e clamiaat died during the pendency of fhe claim petition on 31.03.2004, fherefore, fhere was no reason to connect fhe deafh of fhe iajured claimant wifh the uijuries caused .to Tiim ia fhe accident aud nofhiag has been proved with regard to the same. On perusal ofthe Lower Court Record we have found that fh.ere was uo evidence to coiuiect the death of the iajured with ttie uijiiries caused due to the accident. The postmortem was also not conducted Therefore, we are of the opiaioii that fhe claimants are not entitied to receive loss of dependency on account ofdeath ofdeceased as granted by the Claims Tribunal aad they are only entitled to the expenses iacurred for fhe treatment of fhe iajured as also repairuig charges offhe inoped and loss of estate. Hence, we aUow fhe foUowing amounts which fhe Clauns Tribunal has granted to the claimants : 10. Thus the amovSit awarded by the Tubunal i.e., Rs. 14,11,700/ - is reduced to Rs.1,30,425/-. The said amount shaU cany •fl S.Bo. Particulars of the head under wfaich the amouat granted Amount 01. Purchase of auto parts for repainag fhe Moped _•_ Rs. 5,425/- 02. Medical treatment expeuses Rs. 70.000/- 03. Nutrition food duriuttg treatmeitt Rs. 20,000/- 04. Attenda&t chai^es Rs. 20,000/- 05. Traasportation _Jf^- Rs. 5,000/- 06. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. Rs.1,30,425 j Rcm sioiple interest @ 6% per annum fixiin fhe date offilmg ofthe claim petition till its payment is made except for Qie period for which fhe claim petition did not remaia pendmg i.e., fi-om 09.04.2009 to 29.03.2011 (fi-om the date the claim petitionwas disnussed and till the date when fhe clann petition was restored). No penal iaterest would be leviable on the amount of conipensation. 11. In view of fhe above, fhe appeal is aUowed at fhe Biotion stsvge itself. The award offhe Tribunal dated 27.07.2011 is modified to the above extent The amotmt, which has already been deposited by the appeUaat, shaU be adjusted towards the aaiouat ofcoiapensation fixed hereia. , Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddm Judge sssr- ^