Order on Board

16.09.2021

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24.08.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case- 448 of 2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part, awarded Rs.17,75,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated after 60 days of award, in a fatal accident case and fastened liability to satisfy compensation upon NA 1 Insurance Company.

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.08.2010, Bhaiyalal was travelling on his motorcycle and going to Baikunthpur. While so, when he reached to his village Kamalpur, one Tractor bearing No.CG15 ZG 0279 and Trolley bearing No.CG15 ZG 0280 (for short, 'offending tractor') driven by NA2 dashed motorcycle. In the accident, Bhaiyalal suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on the spot.

3. Applicants/Appellants, who are widow, children and parents of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.51,91,112/- on different heads on account of untimely motor accidental death of deceased Bhaiyalal. During pendency of claim application, applicant-5, mother of deceased died and her name was deleted.

4. NA1/Insurance Company of offending tractor submitted reply to claim application denying facts pleaded therein. It is further pleaded that amount of compensation claimed to be highly exaggerated; on the date of accident, NA2, driver of offending tractor was not possessed with valid and effective driving license; and Insurance Company of motorcycle is not arrayed as party non-applicant, hence, claim application is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. NA2 and 3, driver and owner of offending tractor submitted their reply denying the facts pleaded in claim application. It was pleaded that accident was result of negligence on the part of deceased himself. Amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. NA2 was possessed with valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Offending tractor was insured with NA1/Insurance Company, as such, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Insurance Company.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that late Bhaiyalal died on account of motor accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor by NA2. Breach of policy conditions and non-joinder of necessary parties were not found to be proved. Learned Claims Tribunal assessing income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation and awarded Rs.17,55,000/- as total compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, if amount awarded is not deposited within 60 days of award.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in considering income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month only, overlooking documentary evidence placed on record ie Ex.P9 Salary slip of deceased. He submits that deceased was a Government Servant, working with SECL (South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd) on the post of P Khalasi. Each month, employer/SECL issues Salary Slip showing income of employee on different heads as well as deductions. Learned Tribunal while assessing income, has taken note of Ex.P9, Salary Slip of deceased for the month of April 2010 and Ex.D4 (another Salary Slip for the month of July 2010) and held that in Salary slip of July, Rs.11,811/- is mentioned under the head of Net Pay and assessed income as Rs.15,000/- per month, which is erroneous. He submits that Tribunal failed to consider evidence of AW3 Tilak Kumar, Personal Manager of SECL under whom deceased was working. In Paragraph-11 of his statement, he clarified as to why two Salary Slips of deceased of same year were exhibited and there is difference in basic pay. Witness has