The court emphasized the assessment of compensation based on the deceased's income and dependency and highlighted the liability of insurance companies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 37 of 2015 vide award dated 06.02.2016.

2. The appellants/claimants filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- under various heads for the death of Hemant Satnami in the motor accident took place on 09.11.2014 caused by respondent No. 1 herein by driving tractor bearing registration No. CG/04/DA/3653 and trolley bearing registration No. CG/04/DB/9452 (for short, the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner by dashing the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-25-1801 being driven by deceased Hemant Satnami as soon as he reached near Yadav Hotel along with household material.

3. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and respondents No. 2 & 3 are the owner of the same vehicle, but, they denied to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was duly insured and that they are having valid documents. On the other hand, respondent No. 4, by filing its written statement, admitted that respondent No. 4 is the insurer of alleged Tractor and denied the averments with respect to income based on no evidence and the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle, while respondent No. 5, by filing its written statement, pleaded that trolley of the tractor was not insured with its company for want of verification of insurance policy and that accident took place due to tractor being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and not on account of trolley and also that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, it is not responsible for payment of compensation

4. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver Mahendra Kumar/respondent No. 1 herein; deceased Hemant Satnami sustained multiple injuries and died; there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased; terms and conditions of the insurance policy could not be established; assessed the total compensation of Rs.7,93,500/- and since the deceased was held equally liable for contributory negligence on his part to the extent of 50%, therefore, deducted 50% of the amount assessed by it and then awarded the remaining 50% amount (Rs.3,96,750/-) to the claimants while fastening liability upon respondent No. 4-I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company as it could not establish violation of policy conditions.

5. Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has fallen in error in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.100/-. It is also submitted by him that the Claims Tribunal also erred in holding the deceased equally responsible for cause of accident to the extent of 50%. While inviting attention to this Court towards Ex.P/3, which is a spot map, it is next contended that there was no head on collision between the vehicle and it was the driver of the offending vehicle, who was wholly responsible for cause of accident and not the deceased. It is further submitted by him that after due investigation, Police have filed charge sheet against respondent No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle. It is also submitted that both tractor and attached trolley are involved in the accident, therefore, both the insurance companies are liable to satisfy the award. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

6. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that both tractor and trolley were duly insured by respondents No. 4 & 5/insurance companies and that there was no breach of policy conditions by owner at the