HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ISINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. u Misc. Appeal No. 673/2003 ’ Appellant : National Insurance Company Limited. Versus Ré‘si’ONDENTs Anjorbati and others. ORDER “\‘\ \\,\ i POST ON \5/March, gm; Sd/- \V. ‘ ‘ R.L. Jhanwar ‘ \ Judge )L/03/2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. No. 673 of 2003 APPELLANT (Defendant No.3) National Insurance Company Ltd., Near Central Bank, Jagdalpur, Through Branch Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT 1. Anjorbati, 30 years, Wd/o Late Roop Claimant No.1 , Singh. RESI30NDENT 2. Hemant Kumar, 12 years, S/o Late Roop Claimant No.2 Singh, Minor, through motherAnjorbati. RESPONDENT 3. Radhika, 10 years, D/o Late Roop Singh, Claimant No.3 Minor" through mother Anjorbati. No.1 to 3 are by caste ~ Gond, R/o village —- Daldali, Post — Sarona, Narharpur, District—Kanker (C.G.) Defendant No.1 Ghanshyam Sahy, R/o Village — Daldali, Post ’— Sarona, Narharpur, District — Kanker(C.G.) ~Driver- 5. Shri Ram Pratap Sahu, S/o Sakha Ram Sahu, R/o Village — Daldali, Post — Sarona, Narharpur, District — Kanker (C.G.) -Owner— APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 RESPONDENT 4. Shri Uma Shankar Sahu, 20 years, S/o RESPONDENT Defendant No.2 Appearance: Shri B. N. Nande, counsel forthe appellant. Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 & 5. 0RDgR (Passed on’tL.03.201 1) This is an appeal by the insurer i.e. National Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 07.05.2003 passed by the 4"” Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.38/2002 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.96,000/- as total compensation to the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants, in a death case. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- claimed by the claimants by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles (>9 Act for the death of Roop Singh due to injuries sustained in the motor accident, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing submissions made by them, held that on the date ' of accident, due to rash 'and negligent driving by its driveru/ respondent , No.1 the tractor bearing No.M.P. 23 GA/3513 and trolley bearing No.M.P. 23 GA/3514 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), the deceased Roop Singh, who was found to have been sitting on the trolley, died as a result of severe injuries; as the offending vehicle was insured on the date of incident, the appellant/insurer was also liable to pay compensation and awarded Rs.96,000/- as total compensation for the death of Roop Singh in such moto accident. The Tribunal fastened the liability to pay cpenatio aount awarded by it on the respondents jointly and sverally, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its trealization.‘ 3. Being agievd the impugned order dated 07.05.2003, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 4. Shri B. N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued hat e lned ribunal did not give the appellant/insurer any opportuni of lang evidence on the point of fake licence produced by the dver on the date of incidt, despite an application for leading evidence thereof was presented. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in not seeing the evidence of the appellant/insurer on the point that the offending vehicle was taken on‘rent meaning thereby the offending cle was being used for commercial purpose and not agricultural purpse. Lastly, he argued that amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/— awarde by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. On these premis, he urged that the appeal may be allowed. On the other hand, Shri D.N.Prajapati, learned counsel for rspondents No. to 3 argued in support ofthe impugned order. 5. 6 l have heard learned cunsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned ard and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 7. in the present case, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by he claimants, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/— and assuming that the deceased must be getting labour work for 15 days, the l ; r omsn m e gre by t th ear T ty edi ri en vehi o d es e 1 . o aw t Tribunal worked out total income of the deceased as Rs.750/—. After deducting Rs.250/-_towards personal expenses, the Tribunal worked out the monthly dependency at Rs 500/— and Rs 6 000/— Taking into account the age of the deceased between 35 40 as on the date of accrdent the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and then multiplied the amount of dependency of Rs 6000/- With the multiplier of 15 and worked out total dependency as Rs 90 OOO/- By adding Rs 6000/— under the permiSSible heads the Tribunal worked out to Rs.96,000/— as total compensation for the death of Roop Singh in the motor accident. l am of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. V 8 So far as the argument that the Tribunal did not give any opportunity of leading evidence as to the driver was holding fake licence at the time of accident is concerned, a bare perusal of record has clearly revealed that one Rajesh Kumar Bhargav N.A.W.1 entered into witness box on behalf of the appellant/insurer On perusal of his evidence It is clear that he is the employee of Office of R TA Raipur and denied that licence issued to respondent No4 was not of his Office Except this Witness the insurer has not been able to produce any Witness to prove that the drivmg licence of respondent No 4 was fake one ln the absence of cogent eVidence, it is difficult to hold that at the time of. aCCIdent, the respondent No.4 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 9. As regards the argument that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose whereas the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose, a perusal of record has clearly revealed that there is no policy of insurance on record. lt appears that the insurance company did not produce policy of insurance despite best opportunity was given to it. ln the absence of such crucial document, it cannot be said that respondents No.4 & 5 breached the policy of insurance. lt was incumbent upon‘ the insurer to produce the policy so that this Court could see what are terms and conditions between the parties. ‘lO. i . So far as driving licence exhibited as Ex.N.A.1 is concerned, after perusal of record, it is clear that although the appellant was given best opportunity of leading evidence to produce documents relating to driving licence and adduce evidence as to driving licence was fake one, but the appeliant / insurer has not been able to produce any such document which shows that the driving licence issued to respondent No‘4 was fake nor has been able to adduce any evidence thereofl Evidence of Rajesh Kumar Bhargava N.A.W.2 has clearly shown that he is the employee o‘f R.T.A., Raipur and not the employee of R.T.A. Jhansi, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, how this witness could know about the driving licence issued by R.T.A. Jhansi. ln this manner, the appellant/insurance company has utterly failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose on the date of incident and that the driving licence was fake one. i 11" “For the foregoing reasons, l am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are purely based on legal, clinching and reliable evidence sustainableunder law. i find no illegality in the impugned order. 12. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit and substance is /V é liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. a // ,// Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar‘ Judge