IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 5&2 5/01? 200:: MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173, OTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. /1’) Santosh S/o Prabhuram, aged about 22 years, Cultivator, Appellants Non applicants 4 to 6 2) Vijay Kumar S/o Prabhuram, aged about 15 years, Minor, through Vali, father Prabhuram S/o Ram Das. 3) Prabhuram S/o Ram Das, aged about 44 years, Occupation service Cultivator, All R/o Village Telaikachhar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.). VERSUS ) The Orlental Insurance Co Ltd Respondents: Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Branch Amblkapur Distrlct Sarguja k 2) Aravind Minz S/o Rafail Minz, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Pandopara , Thana Patna, Tahsil . Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.). Smt. Divyakiran Minz, W/o Arvind Minz, aged about 30 years, R/o Pandopara, Thana Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.). -- Non applicants 1 to 3 4) Devnarayan S/o Ramdas aged about 42 occupatlon Serv1ce (S E C L Vlshrampur) ; 5) Sonsal S/o Devnarayan, aged about 15 years, o) Rajkumar S/o Devnarayan, aged about 7 years, Nos. 5 & 6 minors, through Vali, father Devnarayan S/o HAll R/o Village Telaikatchhar, Tahsil Surajpur, District s‘arguja (C.G.). 7)/, Nanki Wd/o Late Shri Ujit, aged about 46 years, R/o Village Sohagpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja -- Non applicants 7 to 10 Panchuram S/o Budhram, aged about 18 years, Caste Bargah R/o Village Tilaikachhar, Tahsrl Surajpur, Distrlct Sarguja (C G) -- Applicant/Claimant a r & HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR %/ Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Aggeal No.725 of 2004 ° Santosh and others AppeHants VBFSUS ResgOndents The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd. and others Present: Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhl‘shek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri J.A.Lohani, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for respondent No.8. No one appears for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Miscellaneous Appeal No.863 of‘2004 Appellant Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd. verSUS Respondents Panchuram and others ‘ Present: % Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the MotOr \7ehicles Act, 1988 ‘ ORDER (Passed on I6“\July, 2010) r‘ afi1. l at This order shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal H No.725/2004 and 863/2004. On 3-5-2010, Miscellaneous Appeal l} No.725/2004 was directed to"'be listed for final disposal along with 1‘ Miscellaneous Appeal No.863/2004, therefore, both_ the appeals are l disposed of by this common order. s I r i ii J Miscellaneous Appeal No.725l2004 2. The present appellants were non-claimants No.4, 5 and 6 in the claim petition, which was instituted by respondent No.8 Panchuram, son of Budhram. In his claim petition, Panchuram claimed compensation of Rs.7,55,000/-'on account of death of Budhram, son of Ramdas. Budhram died in the motor accident involving motor cycle Bajaj Kawasaki bearing No.MP 27 D 7502, which was driven by respondent No.2 Arvind Minj. I 'w ‘ . 3. According to the claimant Panchuram, he was adopted son of the deceased Budhram, who was issueless and he was residing with Budhram from the‘age of 12 years. The deceased was earning VRs.5,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 48 years on the date of accident. 4. The insurance company stated that the claimant Panchuram is son of Devnarayan and was not the son of the deceased Budhram. It was stated that the driver of the motor cycle was not having valid driving licence and in the requisition for post mortem, the concerned police has also noted the name of claimant Panchuram son of Devnarayan. It was also stated that Budhram was heavily drunk and was guilty of contributing to the accident. Respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Arvind Minj and.Smt. Divyakiran Minj, respectively, have also stated that the claimant is not the son of the deceased Budhram. They have denied that the motor cycle was involved in the accident. It was I also stated that respondent N(o.2 Arvind Minj was having valid driving ‘ licence and the vehicle was insured wrth the insurance company. L . . . . . it. tap 5. The present appellants/non-claimants No.4, 5 and 6 have also stated that the claimant is not the son of the deceased Budhram. Accotding to the appellants/non-claimants No.4, 5 and 6, they are entitléd for compensation. The non-claimants No.7 to 10, By filing separate written statements, have admitted the contents of the claim petitio‘n. t 6. §The learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a hnding that the deed 30f adoption Ex.A—5 has’been proved from the statements of the witness‘ l3rabhuram (non-applicant No.6 in the claim case) and the witness Santosh Kumar (non-applicant No.4 in the claim case), who have admitted their signatures in the document, however, the Claims Tribunal has treated this document as Will and has found that the claimant Panchuram is entitled to receive compensation. it was also observed that the claimant Panchuram is in possession of the landed property of the deceased after his death. The Tribunal has allowed compensation of Rs.2,16,000/—. The insurance company has also been held to be liable for payment of compensation. a 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants No.1 and 2 are the nephews of the deceased Budhram and appellant No.3 is the brother of the deceased Budhram, therefore, they are entitled to the award of compensation and that the claimant ‘ Panchuram was not entitled to be awarded any compensation. 8. On perusal of the recordTit would appear that AW-3 lndramani is the person who has written the deed of adoption Ex.A—5. He says that L/the document was written as was dictated by the deceased Budhram, who had put his thumb impression in his presence and that Panchuram’s natural father Devnarayan had also put his thumb impression. He has also proved the signatures of Prabhuram, "Chakradhari, Subhash, Gangaram, Santosh Kumar, Kusairam and Pawan, all of them having signed in his presence. The witness has denied the suggestion that the document was prepared after the death of Budhram. NAW-1 Prabhuram has admitted his signature in the i document though he has stated that the document was prepared after the death‘of Budhram. Santosh Kumar has been examined as NAW-3. He has admitted his signature in Ex.A-5 though he explains that since the claimant had assured him of his share in the claim amount, he put his signature in the document. 9. On a reading of the document Ex.A—5, whose execution is not in doubt, it would appear that the document is in two parts. The first part recites that Budhram is adopting Panchuram in front of witnesses and in the second part it is mentioned that after death of Budhram, Panchuram shall be his successor. In view of the contents of the document, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the document can be read as a Will and the claimant Panchuram would be entitled to award of compensation to the exclusion of the appellants/non-claimants No.4, 5 and 6. Moreover, L Wthe Claims Tribunal has also found that the landed property of the deceased is in possession of Panchuram. Thus, it is strange as to why the appellants have not objected to Panchuram’s possession and l assertion of rights over the landed property of Budhram, when, according to them, the claimant Panchuram was not the adopted son l @ of Budhram or that ExA-5 was a forged document Two of the appellants namely Prabhuram and Santosh have admitted their Signatures on Ex A-5 though they have tried to explaln their Slgnatures by saying that the document was prepared after the death of Budhram and that Panchuram had promised some share m the compensation Be that as It may they could have raised an objection as to the second part of l the document wherein Budhram had declared that after hrs death Panchuram would be hrs successor 10. l‘n‘vlew of the above, this Court does not find any error or illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Claims a a Tribunal. 11. The Instant miscellaneous appeal is dev0id of any substance It fails and Is hereby dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal No.863/2004 12. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on the higher side and that the claimant Panchuram is not entitled for compensation as he was not adopted by Budhram. a 13. lt is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured by the appellant/insurance company on the date of accident. The accident g l X3 s x took place on 10 7-2001 and the insurance companys Witness Ajay l i i Pal Gupta has stated that the vehicle was insured from 17-5 2001 to l i 16 5 2002 The other Witness examined by the insurance company, l namely, Gagan Chopda is a Surveyor and had visited the village to l ascertain the status of the claimant Panchuram. From his statement, it \/ l i would appear that he met rival claimant Santosh Kumar, who informed him that Panchuram is not the son of Budhram. 14. While dealing With Misceiianeous Appeal No 725/2004 this Court has already recorded a finding that reliance placed by the Claims Tribunal on Ex A-5 to award compensation to the claimant Panchuram Is not Illegal or perverse In View of this, the appeal filed by the Insurance company challenging Panchuram’s entitlement to compensation deserves to be dismissed. l Va 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has also. argued that the amount of compensation is awarded on the higher side, however, since the insurance company was not granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company is not entitled to raise‘argument regarding quantum of the compensation in view of the law laid down- by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mastan and another, (2006) 2 SCC 641 and Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, (2006) 3 SCC 242. 16. ln view of the above, the miscellaneous appeal filed by the insurance company has no substance. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge eopai