.s^* .t^ IN THEHIGH GOURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal ( C l No• :M OF 200^ APPELLANT (Insurer) The Oriental Insurahce Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Division Office, Malviya Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) Versus .^:-' 5?' RESPONDENTS: Claimant ^J^ ^y^ w iSf Driver of vehicle 1. Ku. Preeti Patel D/o -^ate Shri Sokhi Lal Patel, aged about 13 years. 2. Prakash Patel, S/aLate 'Shri Sokhi Lal Patel, aged about 10 years. SyVikash Patej S/o Late Shri Sokhi Lal Patel, aged about 7 years. [Respondents 1 to 3 minor through its present guardian/Uncle Rajmani Patel) (Respondents No. 1 to 3 all R/o QuarterN6.6H, Street No.28, Secfor-4, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)} ' 4. Amar Singh S/o .Jeet Singh, R/o Steel Nagar, Street No.18, Camp- l,Bhilai, P.S.Chawni, ~'!'^. A Dist. DurgfC.G.) Owner of vehicle 5.M/S ShivnarayanSingh 8s Laxminarayan Singh through its Proprietor Shivnarayan Singh, R/o Pathardih, Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad (Bihar) APPEALU/S 1730F^THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACTAGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 13.10.2006 PASSED BY THE 4th MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL. DURG (C.G.l IN >-^ C.T.N0.89/2005 PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR GAYKWAD 1 :' ~f~~ a •ts—.;':^' HIGHCOIJRTyOt'GHHA'I'TISGAMlA'rBN.teFUR iMlSC. Mo. 178 !of32067 APPEU.ANT ,(Iasu»er| RESB'ON&ENTS (Giaimanitl s The Oriental InsurancetCQmpany! ^,;. '•tiimited.';. ;•:•:. ;.':^.: ; ••.;•,:•'•...'-^': • • Vexsus -; :;; .::': '•.•••: •..::; .:. Ku. Preeti Patel and oth.ers. :DB:-/'HO]^Bia^HRI»Kaaai3^SECTE^ ^;.a .,^iH(^®iti]E!SHRBaRS,*HEaSiBn^fflre^:^ :.pR@SENT;:&%-:ryS^?ffi, ^Sliri AbtiisheK SiriKa ^ ^I^ewangait, ASvocate^foi- None fi)t- the'responflents ^gffira^-tSlSSI.Pafel: |gpi>eHants..jl.'r, aaaa.iSK.i-i-^Biffi. •..:^O^A; ?£OgR !E.'S:.'.^.'l''l':' ;.''?^3it23Si 0^:l:^L.'^.,:..!'.^ •Pet^K.':A®rwal,.J.';:,^'^rS^?':';%:':'SAi'^:;:':.^^ ,:::''''''::'..': :•;:'.:;:':':::^:;'!./: ;.^Heard;.ii]^ly.; ';':;:::r^.'':'.:;";^^ :;:: • • "; ':':'? 1. ;'':':^.'^.:'1 2. .. ,jThis;isinsi^r'SEfi^eal;a^]ast1;he^^^a^^ •passe^;^ the: 4% ^ Accidents' Claims, ;Tril3unal^^ ;l)Uig^i(f ^sho^ e^£;laM^"ra^^ grantmg',<3Gmpensafion''c)f^sl5,M^ aT&'t^?'legal^repi»sentaSves:of:t]ie'd^ 3.; BrieEfacts ofthe.ease^in a;n^shell, are^^^^^& of;19.07.2003 N'lff.00 a^..at^®a(liNo.I8of^eH ;Gteow^ ffie^ ^eceaSeci^SolihilIal^aIong .Ms^^fe^ ^seoOfer,:.at.'thg,sarne^Mnie;'I%ck^^TanK^ .laemg •dtiyen^'^ ,its ydnvec7 ^^'re ^nfigligerit ^anner 3ashe^^ ^ceased and. Mis; family^ a'eeeiK^ '!3:t;?t;;S,i'fe>!tl:.sLiSley'MJKI>x^iS;(s3^]M>St^ ccn^se' 6f;treatment both ha^^ed^^'^ ^ ::[.'rt:s'::^:l^:'.3' ;:"•"• ^.-'.' - •.'•': .;,1^1; 1 -:.!; :1^''./;^':1'."'- /PoIice;StafK}n-c®neerned.'i;..':y;::F.:l:;l:.'.'''!'^ :-.^^:;:'/';l'':?'.t-;;B1'^ J..' •n,.-.i-^v".-y-KW^.ir w": 5i®M@?e)^i^.^^^SS^l^s%;%Ki .,/'"[' te^ t^'- '.?-"• 't;.;'; LJ.. -3.- 4. Seeking compensaj:ion ;of Rs.56,9Q,OOQ/- on various^^ the Claiiriants preferred Glainr petition pleading therein thal the deceased SokhUal was working in B eamingRs.7,5QO/-permonth.^ ; ' : '" ^ :' : ' 5. ^ Respohdent No.4 / Dnyer, 'by filing writteh statement,.denied the^ayerrnents nientioned inclaiHl^^^p^ respondent 3 before the Tribuhal, inter alia dehyingthe aYermenJs rnentidned in olaim petition pleaded that the Truck^Ta^ being plied in tlreach of temis and coriditiohs and the deeeased was alsp negligent; in driving liis scobter on the date of aecident, dueto:which,hedied.:,. • ^ • 6. - All the parties led their evidence befbre the Tribunal.- 'Fhe Tribiinal, pn close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and matenal placed before it, faeld tHaf on aceoiinf of rash and negUgerit driving by respondenf No.4' / Dnver, 1Jie^^ d^ Soldiilal arKl his wife Premway into their deafli and ihat on the date df incilient the said TruGk Tahker: was also insured with the msurance Goinpany,.therefcre, tHe Tribitnal held the appellant and responderit No.S/QwnerjDintly and severally responsible ior payment of compensafion pf Rs.15,90,000/- to the:,claimants a^ awarded such amount with interest ;a1;.06% 'per arinurEi fram the date Qfclaim petition .till.its realization. It is fhis^ undei'.;claallenge:1^ th^,uisi;ir?-n.Cff,:Goinpany. . /:, •, - 7. The only submissioh of Shri Abhishek Sinha, ^learried counsel fbr the appellant / insurance cpmpany^is that since there was head on colUsion between the scooter- and Truck T^ there&re, there was cerfamly some negHgence pn th6 p^ deceased alsaand thelearHey. i naI^^^ the inatter while deciding the claim and amouht of coinpensation requires to be reduced suitably. "^s^y-. Qr —3,- .8. We have heard leamed cbunsel for the appellant and have perused fhe award impugned and records of the Court below. 9. Qn appreciation^of tKe evidence Sdduced in theicase,^^^ not flnd;.^iy ^ent' a^ appeUant did not adduce any evidence hor did point out a^ in the evidence adducect already in this case suggesting contnbutpry negligence onthe'part pf the deceased. ; 10. PQr the .foregoing reason, we are of the considered Qpinion that the- learned Claiiiis Tribunal Kas; rightly appreciafed ;the evidence smd thus reeorded its findings awapding s^ compensalion. The fmdings reconled ^ the leaj'ned Tribunat are based on clinching; cogent and reliable evideneb. '' . ; 11. Consequeritiy, the appeal^^d by the appeUa^ .company, beirig deyoid 6f"merit?and substance, i&llable to l3e1and is hereby dismissed. No order as to 'CQSts..: . .'" •• .;___— Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge