Compensation caps set under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act limit claims despite evidence of income loss. Courts must adhere to statutory ceilings while ensuring justice to claimants.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Distt. - Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2015.

2. The averment in in this appeal, in brief, is that the appellants, who are the unfortunate widow and family members of the deceased Kanhaiya Koushik, filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking just compensation for the untimely demise of Kanhaiya Koushik in a fatal road accident. The appellants pleaded that on 10.06.2014 at about 10:45 P.M., the deceased was traveling on his motorcycle from Parsada to Jarhabhatha in connection with his work. While he was passing in front of Swadeshi Food House, near Hightech Bus Stand, Bilaspur, he was hit by a truck bearing registration number CG-07/C/5018, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. As a result of the said accident, the deceased, Kanhaiya Koushik, along with another person Buddhi Singh, sustained grievous injuries and both died on the spot. The appellants claimed that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent and reckless driving of respondent No.1. Accordingly, they held respondent No.1 (driver) and respondent No.2 (owner) of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable for the accident. Respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Ltd., being the insurer of the said vehicle, was also impleaded as a party and made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The accident was reported at Sirgitti Police Station, District Bilaspur, where an FIR was registered, and upon investigation, a criminal charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the truck under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 143/2014, and the same is pending before the competent criminal Court. The appellants also pleaded that the deceased, Kanhaiya Koushik, was around 32 years of age at the time of death and was employed as a Security Guard, earning an annual income of Rs. 40,000/-. Under various heads, the appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 20,50,000/-, and prayed that all three respondents, driver, owner, and insurer, be held jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

3. In response, respondents No.1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending truck, filed a written statement denying the allegations of negligence and claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. They further contended that the claim amount was exaggerated. However, they admitted that the vehicle in question was duly insured on the date of the accident, and therefore, liability, if any, would be upon the insurance company. Respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Ltd., also filed a written statement. It took the plea that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and that the claim amount was excessive and unjustified. However, the insurance company failed to lead any evidence to substantiate its defense or prove breach of any policy condition. No witness was examined on behalf of the insurer.

4. To prove their case, the claimants examined Smt. Mala Koushik (A.W.-1), widow of the deceased, and Narendra Singh Rajput (A.W.-2), who is an eye-witness to the incident. Both witnesses supported the claimants’ case and affirmed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The claimants reiterated that the d